In Partners Insight, LLC v. Gill, No.: 2:22-cv-739-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2025), Florida Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek granted the Defendants’ motion to quash some nonparty subpoenas, deeming them overly broad and seeking irrelevant information. But he denied the motion to quash subpoenas to other nonparties, finding the information sought was relevant to the case.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets by the plaintiffs (who provide management assistance for optometry practices), Plaintiffs served nonparty subpoenas on Pinellas Eye Care, P.A. and Frank Crum. Defendant Steven Gill briefly worked for Pinellas Eye Care after leaving Plaintiffs, and Frank Crum was apparently the staffing agency that assisted with his placement. Plaintiffs also subpoenaed Theron Hill, Phillip Kelly, Dr. Jessica Diane Brown Ward, and Alesha Thornton Smith, who “were 1099 workers [that] helped out Eyetastic Services” (one of the businesses that Defendants started after leaving Plaintiffs’ employment) with recruiting. Defendants moved to “quash the subpoenas…because [they] are untimely [and] extremely overly broad and seek irrelevant information.”

Addressing the timing of the nonparty subpoenas, Judge Dudek began by stating: “Defendants first raise a timing objection…The subpoenas each had a response deadline after discovery closed. Thus, according to Defendants, the subpoenas amount to ‘untimely discovery requests and…should be quashed.’…To start, it’s not clear that Defendants have standing to quash the subpoenas… Defendants have not shown (or even argued) a personal right or privilege in the documents sought.”

Continuing, he said: “Regardless of standing, the Court declines to quash the subpoenas as untimely. The case management deadlines were suspended to address several discovery disputes…Once those motions are resolved, the Court will set a new schedule and reopen discovery. Thus, even if the subpoenas were untimely when served, recent developments have cured that defect. There is a strong preference for cases to be decided on the merits rather than procedural errors or technicalities…Against that backdrop, the Court will let the subpoenas proceed rather than limit Plaintiffs’ discovery on a technical defect that has been obviated.”

Next, Judge Dudek addressed the Defendants second argument that the subpoenas are “overly broad and seek irrelevant information”, stating: “Defendants have shown good cause for a protective order concerning the subpoenas to Pinellas Eye Care and Frank Crum. This case concerns the Gills starting a competing business and breaching their employment agreements by soliciting Plaintiffs’ customers, vendors, and contacts. But the subpoenas to Pinellas Eye Car and Frank Crum cast a far wider net. For instance, [sic] Defendants demand that Pinellas Eye Care provide any ‘physical examination or medical records’ concerning Steven Gill…And Frank Crum must produce ‘[a] complete copy of Steven Gill’s employment file including,…internal or external complaints or charges, workers’ compensation records, litigation records, or other similar information.’…The overbreadth is obvious.”

He added in granting the request to quash those nonparty subpoenas: “Rule 45 also requires parties to ‘take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.’…That directive was all but ignored here. The subpoenas require Pinellas Eye Care and Frank Crum to assemble and produce every record ‘pertaining to the employment…of Steven Gill.’…While Plaintiffs are certainly entitled to evidence that Steven Gill violated his employment contract, a general rummaging through the records of a subsequent employer is not justified.”

However, for the other nonparty subpoenas, Judge Dudek stated: “The subpoenas to Theron Hill, Phillip Kelly, Dr. Jessica Diane Brown Ward, and Alesha Thornton Smith stand on different footing…As mentioned, they are recruiters who worked at Eyetastic Services. Unlike above, these subpoenas are not the shotgun blast variety. Rather, Plaintiffs focus on the recruiters’ communications with candidates ‘previously employed with’ Gulf Coast Optometry or ‘candidates for positions to be filled’ at certain companies…Such documents are obviously relevant. They go to the heart of Plaintiffs’ claim that the Gills opened a competing business and solicited customers and clients in violation of their employment contracts.”

Continuing, he said: “Defendants stress that ‘[t]here are no allegations in the Complaint that any of these individuals had any involvement in the alleged actions in this case.’…But discovery is not bound to the facts mentioned in the pleadings…To be relevant, the information sought must be ‘germane, conceivably helpful to the plaintiff, or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.’…Whether recruiters working for the Gills contacted Plaintiffs’ customers or clients falls into the ‘conceivably helpful’ category.”

Denying the motion to quash these nonparty subpoenas, Judge Dudek stated: “Defendants also claim that the subpoenas ‘are outrageously overly broad.’…Yet this assertion is unsupported by facts or analysis of any kind. ‘The party requesting a protective order must make a specific demonstration of facts in support of the request as opposed to conclusory or speculative statements about the need for a protective order and the harm which will be suffered without one.’…The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure strongly favor complete discovery,…and the recruiter subpoenas cover topics that align with Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants have not otherwise demonstrated ‘a particular need for protection’ or ‘alleged harm [beyond a] mere trifle.’…A protective order is not appropriate in such circumstances.”

So, what do you think? Do you agree with the Court’s logic regarding which nonparty subpoenas to quash? 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. Check out our coverage of previous rulings in this case here and here.

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.