Crabill v. Hill et al, No. 2:2022cv00013 - Document 64 (S.D.W. Va. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Defendants' 62 Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Donald Ames, as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 4/13/2023. (cc: counsel of record and any unrepresented party) (cla)

Download PDF
Crabill v. Hill et al Doc. 64 Case 2:22-cv-00013 Document 64 Filed 04/13/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 370 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ROBERT CRABILL, III Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-00013 LT. ANDREW HILL, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is the defendants’ motion to quash [ECF No. 62] Plaintiff Robert Crabill’s subpoena of Donald Ames, the Superintendent of Mount Olive Correctional Complex [ECF No. 48]. Plaintiff responded in opposition. [ECF No. 63]. Because Defendants lack standing to quash the subpoena, their motion is DENIED. “Ordinarily, a party does not have standing to move to quash a subpoena served on a third party. Rather, only the person or entity to whom a subpoena is directed has standing to file a motion to quash.” Jacobs v. Conn. Cmty. Tech. Coll., 258 F.R.D. 192, 194–95 (D. Conn. 2009); see also Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979) (first citing Vogue Instrument Corp. v. LEM Instruments Corp., 41 F.R.D. 346, 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1967); and then citing Shepherd v. Castle, 20 F.R.D. 184, 188 (W.D. Mo. 1957)). An exception may apply where the moving party “asserts Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00013 Document 64 Filed 04/13/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 371 a personal right or privilege with respect to the materials subpoenaed” from the nonparty. Scallion v. Richardson, No. CIV-17-992-G, 2018 WL 6037536, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 16, 2018) (quoting Pub. Serv. Co. of Okla. v. A Plus, Inc., No. CIV-10-651D, 2011 WL 691204, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 16, 2011)). In the instant motion to quash, Defendants make no claim of privilege or personal right. Defendants do mention the report that Mr. Ames, their employer, is directed to bring with him to trial, see [ECF No. 62, ¶ 2], and courts have found a “personal right” sufficient to confer standing where the challenged subpoena seeks the movant’s employment records, see, e.g., Scallion, 2018 WL 6037536, at *2. But Defendants do not invoke the report as grounds to quash the subpoena; because Defendants have repeatedly indicated their willingness to stipulate to the authenticity of the report, they mention it in their motion only to show the lack of apparent purpose for Mr. Ames to appear as a witness. See [ECF No. 62]. Rather than claiming any personal right or privilege, Defendants focus on Plaintiff’s failure to previously disclose Mr. Ames as witness. 1 Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 37). Accordingly, the court finds that Defendants lack standing to quash this subpoena. Their motion [ECF No. 62] is therefore DENIED. From the record before the court, it does appear that Mr. Crabill never previously disclosed Mr. Ames as a potential witness. But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly exclude from the disclosure requirements those witnesses who are used “solely for impeachment,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i), 26(a)(3)(A)(i), and Mr. Crabill asserts that he “intends to call Mr. Ames as a rebuttal witness or for the purpose of impeachment of the defendants and/or other witnesses called by the defendants,” [ECF No. 63, ¶ 4]. If, however, Mr. Crabill attempts at trial to elicit testimony from Mr. Ames for purposes other than impeachment, he will need to show that his failure to disclose the witness “was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 1 2 Case 2:22-cv-00013 Document 64 Filed 04/13/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 372 The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 3 April 13, 2023

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.