United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, United States District Judge.
pending and ready for resolution in this employment
discrimination case are two motions to quash third party
subpoenas filed by Defendant TV One. (ECF Nos. 80;
81).The issues have been briefed, and the court
now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule
105.6. For the following reasons, the motions will be denied
recitation of the factual background can be found in the
court's prior memorandum opinion denying Defendant's
motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27, at 1-8).
has moved to quash third party subpoenas Plaintiff served on
AT&T Wireless (“AT&T”), the cell phone
service provider for Jacqueline Kindall, a former Radio One
employee who supervised the TV One Human Resources
Department, and on Verizon Communications
(“Verizon”), the cell phone service provider for
Ms. Hughes. (ECF Nos. 80; 81). Plaintiff filed responses in
opposition to both motions (ECF Nos. 82; 85), and Defendant
replied (ECF No. 86).
Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on AT&T
moves to quash the subpoena served on AT&T, requesting
records of all calls and text messages to and from Ms.
Kindall's personal cell phone between June 21 and June
26, 2014. (ECF No. 80). Defendant argues that the subpoena
was overbroad, requested potentially privileged information,
and was issued after discovery closed, without providing
advance notice to Defendant's counsel in violation of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(4). (ECF No. 80-1, at 1, 3-5). Plaintiff
states in her opposition that the subpoena was withdrawn on
November 23, 2016, before any documents were produced in
response, and that Plaintiff's counsel provided Defendant
with confirmation of the withdrawal on November 28. (ECF No.
82, at 3).
withdrawal of the subpoena render[s] the motion to quash
moot.” In re AmFin Financial Corp., 503 B.R.
1, 2 (Bankr.D.C. 2014)(citing Hardee v. U.S., 2007
WL 3037308 (W.D. N.C. Oct. 16, 2007) (denying the
petitioner's motion to quash subpoena as moot
“[s]ince the subpoenas have been withdrawn, and the
[c]ourt is satisfied that the withdrawal of the subpoenas
have completely eradicated any effect of the alleged
violation in the motion to quash.”); see also
McCrea v. John Hopkins Univs., No. JKB-15-579, 2016 WL
4013639, at *1 n.1 (D.Md. July 27, 2016) (denying the
plaintiff's motion to quash subpoena as moot in light of
the defendants' first opposition and motion, in which the
defendants stated that the subpoena was withdrawn).
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to quash the subpoena
served on AT&T will be denied as moot.
Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Verizon and for
same reasons Defendant sought to quash the subpoena served on
AT&T, Defendant also moves to quash the subpoena served
on Verizon requesting records of all calls and text messages
to and from Ms. Hughes's personal cell phone between June
21 and June 26, 2014. (ECF No. 81-1, at 6). The documents
requested have already been produced in response to the
subpoena and were provided to Defendant on November 23, 2016,
before the motion to quash was filed. (ECF Nos. 81-1, at 3;
81-4; 82-4). Accordingly, the motion to quash is
inappropriate and will be denied as moot.
motion requests sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel due
to counsel's “repeated failure” to obey the
court's scheduling order and Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(4)'s
requirement to provide Defendant with advance notice before
serving third party subpoenas. Specifically, Defendant
requests that the court “order Plaintiff to return and
not keep any copies of any and all records she received from
Verizon and/or AT&T in response to her improper
subpoenas” (Id.). Although Defendant refers to
the standard for granting a motion for a protective order
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), Defendant has filed a motion to
quash and for sanctions, not for a protective order. It does
not appear that Plaintiff has attempted to use these
documents in the pending motions for summary judgment, and
the question of whether Plaintiff should be precluded from
using the documents will be deferred. The court declines to
foregoing reasons, the motions to quash third party subpoenas
filed by Defendant TV One will be denied as moot. A separate
order will follow.
 Cross motions for summary judgment are
also pending, and will be resolved in a separate