United States District Court, D. Kansas
LARRY BLAIR and CHARLIE DAVIS, On Behalf Of Themselves And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA AND FOR
KENNETH G. GALE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiffs' “Motion to Quash
Subpoena to Mary Hoyt and for Protective Order.” (Doc.
372.) Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the
Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion.
a class action case alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Kansas Wage
Payment Act (“KWPA”). Plaintiffs contend that
Defendant “has misclassified its Leased Drivers as
independent contractors, rather than employees, and has
violated the [FLSA] by failing to pay the Leased Drivers
minimum wages and the [KWPA] by failing to pay Leased Drivers
all wages due and otherwise made unlawful deductions of
pay.” (Doc. 363, at 1-2.)
facts of this case were recently summarized in this
Court's Order on Defendant's motion to strike
Plaintiff's supplemental Rule 26 disclosures. (Doc. 403.)
That summary is incorporated herein by reference.
present motion relates to the third-party deposition
subpoenas duces tecum Defendant served on its former
employees Mary Hoyt, Hillary Armknect, Laticia Raine, and
Christine Falkner, all of whom were listed in Plaintiff's
Rule 26 initial disclosures. Plaintiffs object that the
witnesses should not be required to bring “[a]ll
documents received or created as a result of your
employment” with Defendant. (Doc. 372, at 1-2.)
Plaintiff states that this issue is moot as all four
individuals have been deposed “and either brought with
them the limited number of documents that they had relating
to [Defendant], or testified that they were not aware of any
documents in their possession relating to [Defendant].”
(Doc. 394, at 1.)
Ms. Hoyt, however, Defendant has also subpoenaed her to bring
a current archive of her Facebook account. (Doc. 372, at 2;
Doc. 372-1, at 4.) This category of documents remains at
issue between the parties.
26(b) states that
[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at state in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
such, the requested information must be both nonprivileged
and relevant to be discoverable.
45 governs subpoenas, with section (d) of that Rule relating
to “protecting a person subject to a subpoena” as
well as “enforcement.” Subsection (d)(1) of the
Rule states that
[a] party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a
subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue
burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The
court for the district where compliance is required must
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction - which
may include lost earnings ...