Morocho v. Stars Jewelry By the A Jeweler Corp.

Background

Rodrigo Morocho brought a wage-and-hour case alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The defendants served T-Mobile with a subpoena seeking all telephone records for Morocho’s number from May 1, 2017, through May 1, 2023, including incoming and outgoing call times and call durations. Morocho moved to quash the subpoena, meaning he asked the court to cancel it.

Morocho argued that the defendants violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 by failing to give him adequate advance notice. He also argued that the subpoena sought potentially privileged information, information that was not relevant, and information disproportionate to the needs of the case. The defendants argued that the records were highly relevant to whether Morocho was working elsewhere during the hours he claimed to be working for them. The court noted that Morocho had standing to challenge the subpoena because he had a personal interest in avoiding disclosure of matters in his telephone records.

Rule 45 Notice

Rule 45 requires a party serving a subpoena on a nonparty to provide each party with notice and a copy of the subpoena before the subpoena is served. The court found that the defendants did not dispute their failure to meet this requirement. They gave Morocho a copy of the subpoena on January 24, 2024, even though its return date was January 26, 2024, at noon. Thus, Morocho and T-Mobile received less than two business days’ notice that the defendants were seeking six years of records.

The court explained that some courts require a party challenging a subpoena to show prejudice from inadequate notice. It found that Morocho did not appear to have suffered prejudice because T-Mobile had not produced any records. Even so, the court emphasized that the notice violation was not insignificant. It proceeded to identify additional, independent reasons to quash the subpoena.

Overbreadth

The court found the subpoena overbroad because it demanded all telephone records for a six-year period without meaningful limits. Requests for “any and all” records of this kind were described as impermissible fishing expeditions. The court also noted that the requested period extended beyond the date on which Morocho alleged he stopped working for the defendants.

Relevance and Proportionality

Under Rule 26(b)(1), discovery may seek nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense, but the discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the case. The court found that the defendants’ explanation for seeking the records was too speculative. Morocho had not yet been deposed, and the defendants had no testimony from him suggesting that the records would show he was working elsewhere. Telephone records alone would show, at most, that Morocho was using the telephone at particular times; they would not establish what he was doing during those calls.

Disposition

The court granted Morocho’s motion to quash. It directed the defendants to provide T-Mobile with a copy of the order promptly and to certify by letter that they had done so. Magistrate Judge James L. Cott signed the order.