In Oakley v. MSG Networks, Inc., No. 17-cv-6903 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2025), New York Circuit Judge Richard J. Sullivan refused to quash the plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoenas to various non-parties, who were all current and former employees of defendants, but found the plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoenas not proportional to the needs of the case, so he limited their scope to: “from February 8, 2017 to March 1, 2017 regarding the sole topic of Oakley’s removal from MSG.”

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

This case stemmed from an incident in February 2017 at Madison Square Garden (MSG) in which retired New York Knick Charles Oakley was forcibly removed from the stands at a New York Knicks basketball game.

On October 30, 2024, Oakley served Rule 45 subpoenas on current employees of defendants seeking “all communications and ESI concerning Oakley and his removal from MSG, including e-mails, text messages, or instant messages in applications such as WhatsApp from February 8, 2017, to March 1, 2017.” Oakley also served subpoenas on former employees of defendants seeking the same information, though the subpoenas served on four of the former employees contained “no temporal limitation whatsoever”.

Oakley also moved to compel MSG to search for “text messages (or messages on other messaging applications) on the personal phones of [its] employees.” MSG opposed that motion and also moved to quash Oakley’s Rule 45 subpoenas. On December 10, 2024, the Court denied Oakley’s motion to compel MSG to search the personal phones of its employees because Oakley did not include that request in his previous motion to compel document production from MSG. The Court concluded that the law-of-the-case doctrine foreclosed relitigation of MSG’s document production obligations and that “[a]llowing Oakley to engage in such piecemeal discovery requests would run contrary to” the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In that same order, the Court denied MSG’s request to quash the Rule 45 subpoenas on the ground that MSG lacked standing to make such a motion on behalf of the third parties.

Oakley and the employees subsequently filed a joint letter, in which the employees moved to quash Oakley’s Rule 45 subpoenas on the grounds that they were inconsistent with the Court’s prior rulings, constituted an “end-run” around the discovery process, and were unduly burdensome. Oakley opposed the motion to quash.

Beginning his analysis, Judge Sullivan stated: “Oakley has carried his initial burden in demonstrating that the information sought in the Rule 45 subpoenas is relevant to the factual disputes in this case. Specifically, MSG identified each of the Employees as individuals who ‘were either part of the security force that ejected Oakley,’ ‘purportedly observed Oakley behaving inappropriately from the time he entered into the arena or at his seat,’ or ‘conducted an investigation into the incident in the days thereafter.’…The Court has already held that ‘[t]he observations and recollections of all such individuals would shed light on whether the force used to remove Oakley was reasonable.’…Accordingly, Oakley has made a prima facie showing that the Rule 45 subpoenas seek relevant information.”

But, Judge Sullivan also found Oakley’s Rule 45 subpoenas not proportional to the needs of the case: “However, Oakley has failed to carry his initial burden that the requests contained within the Rule 45 subpoenas are proportional to the needs of this case. The subpoenas seek ‘all documents, communications, and ESI concerning: (1) Charles Oakley, (2) the security policy, practices, and procedures of Madison Square Garden, and (3) the removal of Charles Oakley from MSG on February 8, 2017.’…While most of the subpoenas are limited to the period of February 8, 2017 to March 1, 2017, four of them served on the Former Employees do not contain any time limitation with respect to the documents sought…Courts have regularly held that subpoenas seeking ‘All Documents’ or ‘All Communications’ on a given issue are ‘overbroad,’ ‘impermissible,’ and ‘presumptively improper.’”

Continuing, he said: “Indeed, as the Employees correctly argue, the broad subjects listed in the subpoenas ‘are likely to draw in a host of irrelevant information.’…For example, Oakley’s request for documents pertaining to MSG’s security practices covers ‘the entire subject matter’ of many of the Employees’ work for MSG…Additionally, the Court has already limited document production in this case to the time period of February 8, 2017 to March 1, 2017…, yet four of the subpoenas are not confined to this – or any – period. In light of these concerns, the Court hereby limits the scope of Oakley’s Rule 45 subpoenas to personal communications, including personal emails, text messages, and messages on other applications, from February 8, 2017 to March 1, 2017 regarding the sole topic of Oakley’s removal from MSG.”

Judge Sullivan also rejected “arguments as to why Oakley’s Rule 45 subpoenas should be quashed in their entirety, but none of these is persuasive”, rejecting their contention that the request constituted an “end-run” around the discovery process, and rejecting their contention, “without explanation, that the Rule 45 subpoenas would be ‘remarkably burdensome.’”

So, what do you think? Are you surprised that the Court found Oakley’s Rule 45 subpoenas not proportional to the needs of the case? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.