United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
MAXINE Y. DESANZO, Plaintiff,
AHS SOUTHCREST HOSPITAL, LLC, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
H. MCCARTHY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Motion to Quash Subpoena to Hydro Extrusion, [Dkt. 31');">31], for
Protective Order, [Dkt. 32], and Defendant39');">39;s Motion to
Compel or in the Alternative, enjoin Plaintiff from
Interference with Subpoenas and for Sanctions, [Dkt. 39');">39, 4');">40],
are fully briefed and before the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge for decision.
employment at Defendant hospital was terminated. Plaintiff
brought this lawsuit alleging age discrimination and
retaliation for making an EEOC complaint. She seeks back pay,
lost benefits, and front pay until retirement. Since her
employment was terminated, Plaintiff moved to Arizona with
her husband John DeSanzo when he took a job in that state.
Defendant asserts that the move to Arizona cut off
Plaintiff39');">39;s claim for front pay. Plaintiff asserts that
she would not have moved if she were still working for
Defendant. She points out that she did not move to Texas when
her husband took a job there.
issued subpoenas to Mr. DeSanzo39');">39;s Arizona employer, Hydro
Extrusion North America, LLC (Hydro) and his former employers
Ascend Custom Extrusions (Ascend) and IPSCO Tubulars LLC
(IPSCO) seeking information about the terms of Mr.
DeSanzo39');">39;s employment, compensation, and benefits.
Plaintiff moved to quash the Hydro subpoena and instructed
IPSCO not to respond to the subpoena without a court order.
Plaintiff did not move to quash the IPSCO subpoena. Mr.
DeSanzo is not a party to this lawsuit and he did not object
to any of the subpoenas. Neither Hydro nor IPSCO have lodged
objections to the subpoenas. IPSCO refuses to respond to the
subpoena, absent a court order. Plaintiff39');">39;s counsel have
not rescinded the instructions to IPSCO.
to Quash Subpoena to Hydro and for Protective Order
[Dkt. 31');">31, 32]
issued a subpoena to Mr. DeSanzo39');">39;s current employer,
Hydro, seeking production of documents pertaining to Mr.
DeSanzo39');">39;s employment, such as: offer letter, contract,
hiring documents, starting salary, pay structure including
bonuses, potential for bonuses, and expected changes in
neither Hydro nor Mr. DeSanzo object to the subpoena,
Plaintiff argues that she has a “personal right”
to object to the subpoena of her husband39');">39;s employment
information. Plaintiff objects on the basis that the subpoena
is irrelevant on its face as she claims Mr. DeSanzo39');">39;s
employment records have no bearing on her lost wages,
mitigation efforts, infliction of emotional distress claim,
or any other factor relevant to the claims. [Dkt. 31');">31, p. 7].
Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that the marginal relevance
of the documents would be outweighed by the harm of the
disclosure. According to Plaintiff, Hydro is involved in
government contracts and “Mr. DeSanzo believes that
[Hydro] is wary of its employees being involved in any sort
of litigation.” [Dkt. 39');">39, p. 8]. Plaintiff argues the
subpoena potentially puts Mr. DeSanzo39');">39;s employment at
risk. Plaintiff further argues that the employment
information is unnecessary as the DeSanzo39');">39;s tax returns
have been produced.
asserts that since the records being sought are not
Plaintiff39');">39;s, and since Mr. DeSanzo has not joined the
motion to quash, Plaintiff lacks standing to object to the
subpoena and argues that the motion should be denied on that
basis. Defendant further argues that the subpoena imposes no
undue burden on Plaintiff, as she will not bear any
expenditure of time or money in compliance with the subpoena.
In addition, Defendant argues that the employment information
is relevant to defenses to Plaintiff39');">39;s claim for lost
wages. Defendant also states that the tax returns have not
been produced for 2018 and further that Mr. DeSanzo39');">39;s
employment with Hydro did not begin until August 2018, so the
2018 tax returns would contain little information about the
current employment. Further, the 2018 tax returns will not
contain the detail Defendant has requested in the subpoena.
is seeking back pay and front pay. Defendant states it will
have the burden to show Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.
On that point Defendant points out that although Plaintiff
obtained full time employment, she quit that job after about
a year and moved to Arizona with her husband. Defendant
argues that, even if Plaintiff39');">39;s employment with
Defendant had not been terminated, her employment would have
ended in May 2018 when she moved to Arizona, which cuts off
the back pay and front pay claims. Plaintiff testified at
deposition that she would not have moved to Arizona if she
had still been employed by Defendant. Defendant disputes this
assertion and states that the information from Mr.
DeSanzo39');">39;s employer will enable Defendant to develop
arguments to refute Plaintiff39');">39;s claim she would not have
moved to Arizona.
of standing, the court finds that the motion to quash should
be denied on its merits. There has been no showing that the
subpoena imposes any burden on Plaintiff. Plaintiff39');">39;s
comments about the possible impact on Mr. DeSanzo39');">39;s
employment are speculative. Mr. DeSanzo has not objected to
the subpoena so there is no assertion that production of the
information is objectionable to him. Given the fact that
Plaintiff seeks back pay and front pay, and the possible
impact Plaintiff39');">39;s move to Arizona may have on that
claim, the court finds that information about Mr.
DeSanzo39');">39;s job with Hydro is a fair area of inquiry for
discovery purposes. Moreover, the court is not persuaded that
tax returns are sufficient to provide the information
Motion to Quash Subpoena to Hydro Extrusion, [Dkt. 31');">31], and
for Protective Order, [Dkt. 32], are DENIED.
Motion to Compel [Dkt. 39');">39]
issued a subpoena to Mr. DeSanzo'');">39;s former employer,
IPSCO. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff'');">39;s counsel have
improperly interfered with the IPSCO subpoena. Defendant
seeks an order compelling ...