Abdullahi v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc.

Background

Ahmad Mohammed Abdullahi sued Sterling Infosystems, Inc., seeking damages related to Sterling’s inclusion of incorrect information in a background check. The claim centers on Abdullahi’s allegation that he lost a second job he had been accepted for because of the background check. Sterling confirmed that the record in question did not belong to Abdullahi.

Abdullahi moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for a protective order blocking Sterling from enforcing a subpoena to Midwest Quality Home Care, Inc., his current employer. The subpoena sought testimony and documents, including Abdullahi’s entire personnel file. Abdullahi argued that the subpoena could reveal the allegedly false background-check information to his current employer and that the requested information was not relevant.

Discovery standard

The court explained that discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) is limited to nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court also noted that it must limit discovery when the information can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source. Under Rule 26(c), the court may issue a protective order for good cause to prevent annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The party seeking protection bears the burden of showing good cause.

Court’s analysis

Sterling argued that the subpoenaed information could address Abdullahi’s job performance, earnings history, ability to work a second job, ability to work additional hours or full-time for Midwest, and whether his emotional distress affected his work.

The court rejected these arguments in substantial part. It found no relevance in Abdullahi’s current job performance or earnings history to the claim or potential defenses. It also found speculative the possibility that Midwest’s files would contain information about emotional distress or Abdullahi’s ability to work a second job. The court stated that any possible evidentiary value was outweighed by the burden on Abdullahi and the risk that involving his current employer in the litigation could affect the employer-employee relationship.

The court recognized that whether Abdullahi could have worked additional hours or full-time could be relevant to mitigation of his lost-wage damages. Even for that issue, however, the court found that questioning his current employer would impose an undue burden. Abdullahi was available to answer relevant questions under oath, which the court considered a less burdensome way to obtain the information without subpoenaing Midwest.

Disposition

The court granted Abdullahi’s motion for a protective order and quashed the subpoena. The court stated that Sterling could ask for a modification of the protective order if later discovery revealed a justification for doing so.