Udd v. Phoenix, City of

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Darren Udd, No. CV-18-01868-PHX-JJT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. City of Phoenix, 13 Defendant.

15 At issue is Opt-In Plaintiff Jeanette Butcher’s Motion to Quash or Otherwise Modify Subpoena Served on Discover Financial Services, Inc. (Doc. 97), to which Defendant City of Phoenix filed a Response in opposition (Doc. 98). In the Motion, Butcher requests that the Court quash a subpoena served on Discover Financial Services, Inc., her prior part-time employer, seeking her employment records. The Court agrees with Defendant that a party does not have standing to object to a subpoena directed to a nonparty except where the party has a claim of privilege relating to the documents sought. Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965, 973–74 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Here, Butcher provides no support for an argument that the information Defendant seeks from Discover is protected by any privilege applicable to her. To the extent the documents contain her confidential information, their disclosure is covered by Protective Order in this case. Butcher otherwise lacks standing to object to the subpoena served on Discover.

27 The Court notes that even if it found Plaintiff had standing to object here, the Court would conclude that the documents sought are relevant and the scope of the request for || documents is reasonably limited. Plaintiffs claim in this case is for overtime pay under the 2|| Fair Labor Standards Act arising from her employment by Defendant, so Plaintiffs || simultaneous work for another employer, and the extent of that work, is relevant to 4|| Defendant’s defense of the claim.

5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Opt-In Plaintiff Jeanette Butcher’s || Motion to Quash or Otherwise Modify Subpoena Served on Discover Financial Services, || Inc. (Doc. 97).

8 Dated this 4th day of November, 2021. CN iy.

10 wefehlee— Unifga State#District Judge _2-