United States District Court, D. Hawaii
HAWAII REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, AND UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINDERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 745, Plaintiffs,
LANCE YOSHIMURA, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LANCE YOSHIMURA'S MOTION
TO MODIFY SUBPOENA
S.C. Chang United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is Defendant Lance Yoshimura's Motion to Modify
Subpoena, filed October 7, 2016. Plaintiffs Hawaii Regional
Council of Carpenters, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joinders of America, Local 745 filed an Opposition on
November 30, 2016. Defendant filed a Reply on December 7,
matter came on for hearing on February 15, 2017. Kurt Klein,
Esq. and Jessica Wan, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.
James Wade, Esq. and Richard Wilson, Esq. appeared on behalf
of Defendant. After careful consideration of the parties'
submissions, the applicable law, and the arguments of
counsel, the Court HEREBY GRANTS the Motion for the reasons
set forth below.
commenced this action against Defendant, alleging that he
violated his fiduciary duties and violated the Federal
Wiretap Statute. Plaintiffs claim that Defendant stole union
records and made secret illegal recordings. Defendant was
Plaintiffs' employee from 2000 until March 7, 2014, when
he was terminated for violating whistleblowing laws.
September 22, 2016, Plaintiffs served subpoenas to produce
documents upon AT&T and T-Mobile, requesting
Defendant's cell phone records; specifically “a
complete call detail report and text messaging from January
1, 2013 to present.” Mem. in Supp. of Mot., Ex. 1. October
14, 2016 was the assigned compliance date for both subpoenas.
October 7, 2016, Defendant filed this Motion.
party or attorney issues a subpoena, he or she “must
take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(1). Any order compelling production or
inspection following an objection to a subpoena “must
protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's
officer from significant expense resulting from
compliance.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(2)(B).
subpoenaed party may move to quash or modify subpoenas on
various grounds. On timely motion, a court must
quash or modify a subpoena that: “(i) fails to allow a
reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply
beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii)
requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter,
if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person
to undue burden.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A). On the
other hand, a court may quash or modify a subpoena
if it requires: “disclosing a trade secret or other
confidential research, development, or commercial
information.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(B)(i). “[A]
court determining the propriety of a subpoena balances the
relevance of the discovery sought, the requesting party's
need, and the potential hardship to the party subject to the
subpoena.” Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo,
Inc., No. CV-12-80300-RMW, 2013 WL 1508894, at *3 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 10, 2013).
moves to modify the time period set out in the subject
subpoenas to relate to the time period relevant to
Plaintiffs' claims - “January 1, 2013 to March 7,
2014”. Alternatively, Defendant proposes “January
1, 2013 to June 7, 2014” because he was voted out of
union office on June 7, 2014. Defendant asserts the following
bases to support modification: 1) once he was terminated (or
left union office), he could no longer steal records or make
surreptitious recordings; 2) the subpoenas are unduly
burdensome; and 3) the subpoenas are designed to harass
inasmuch as Plaintiffs have already received relevant records
from discovery in state court.
counter that Defendant lacks standing to modify the
subpoenas; that the requested information is relevant because
Defendant continued to make audio recordings even as recently
as October 2015; and that the requested phone records ...