Green v. Cosby
216 F. Supp. 3d 560
E.D. Pa.2016Background
- This miscellaneous action challenges a subpoena (issued from D. Mass.) to Kaplan Leaman & Wolfe (KLW), a court reporting service, requesting documents and testimony about how Plaintiffs in Green v. Cosby (D. Mass.) obtained a full Constand deposition transcript.
- The Constand deposition excerpts were unsealed in E.D. Pa.; KLW produced a full transcript to various parties. Cosby moved in D. Mass. to seal the transcript and alleged misconduct in how it was obtained; the Massachusetts court denied the motion.
- Cosby served an amended subpoena on KLW from the District of Massachusetts; Green filed this motion to quash in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, arguing the subpoena is a pretext to investigate her counsel and is irrelevant to the D. Mass. defamation action.
- Cosby contends Green lacks standing to quash a third-party subpoena and alternatively asks this Court to transfer the motion to the District of Massachusetts; KLW takes no position on the motion to quash.
- The E.D. Pa. case concerning the deposition (Cosby v. American Media, Inc.) was voluntarily withdrawn by Cosby, leaving no related matters pending in this Court.
- The Court ultimately found that interpreting the Massachusetts court’s prior ruling is central to the dispute and that exceptional circumstances warranted transfer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f); it granted transfer to the District of Massachusetts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to quash a third-party subpoena | Green: she has a personal interest because subpoena targets her conduct and could limit her use of the transcript | Cosby: ordinarily parties lack standing to quash subpoenas to nonparties; Green lacks a cognizable personal interest | Court: possible Green has standing given a prior Massachusetts ruling potentially absolving her, but scope is disputed; therefore transfer to issuing court is appropriate |
| Relevance of subpoena to Massachusetts action | Green: subpoena is a pretext and irrelevant to defamation claims | Cosby: subpoena seeks evidence about possible misconduct and is relevant to restricting transcript use | Court: disputed and tied to interpretation of prior Massachusetts ruling; not decided here |
| Appropriateness of quashing based on privilege or burden | Green: seeks quash for irrelevance and investigatory pretext (not asserting privilege) | Cosby: subpoena is valid and should be enforced or disputes resolved by issuing court | Court: did not rule on merits (privilege/burden); declined to decide and transferred motion |
| Transfer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) | Green: presumably prefers local resolution? (opposed transfer) | Cosby: move to transfer to issuing court where related rulings were made | Court: granted transfer as exceptional circumstances exist (issuing court already ruled on related issues; interests of nonparty do not outweigh need for issuing court to manage underlying litigation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Constand v. Cosby, 112 F. Supp. 3d 308 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (background ruling concerning unsealing Constand deposition excerpts)
- Thomas v. Marina Assocs., 202 F.R.D. 433 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (general rule that a party lacks standing to quash a subpoena served on a nonparty)
- Johnson v. Gmeinder, 191 F.R.D. 638 (D. Kan. 2000) (same principle regarding lack of standing to quash third-party subpoenas)
- First Sealord Sur. v. Durkin & Devries Ins. Agency, 918 F. Supp. 2d 362 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (party may have standing when subpoena seeks documents subject to a confidential settlement agreement)
- ITOCHU Int’l, Inc. v. Devon Robotics, LLC, 303 F.R.D. 229 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (party had standing to subpoena third-party bank records tied to a party’s interest)
- In re Grand Jury, 111 F.3d 1066 (3d Cir. 1997) (Third Circuit addressed standing under a wiretap statute; discussed limits of standing doctrine)