Greene v. Philadelphia Housing Authority
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51417
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- HUD issued a subpoena duces tecum to PHA on Dec 10, 2010 seeking unredacted invoices for legal services (2007–2010) to investigate Greene's personal legal fees.
- Following default on HUD obligations, HUD and PHA entered a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement on Mar 4, 2011, appointing Richman to PHA's Board and Kelly as receiver/interim ED.
- On Mar 24, 2011 Richman directed release to HUD of unredacted invoices for legal services from 2005–present.
- Greene filed a motion on Apr 4, 2011 for a TRO and preliminary injunction to block production of potentially privileged invoices and notes from meetings with counsel.
- A Standstill Order was agreed; Greene later consented that some invoices could be released, but the court would determine privilege-related disclosures and review remaining invoices.
- The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Greene's injunctive claims against PHA, Richman, and Kelly, but had jurisdiction to consider the HUD subpoena; court allowed release of certain invoices and required privilege-review of others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Greene's injunction motion? | Greene contends federal question jurisdiction exists due to HUD involvement. | Defendants argue no proper basis for jurisdiction without a complaint; Richman's HUD status does not make actions federal. | No federal question jurisdiction over Greene's injunctive claims. |
| Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction to quash or modify the HUD subpoena for privileged documents? | Greene has standing to move to quash based on attorney-client/work-product privilege. | The subpoena seeks third-party records; standing is limited absent privilege claims related to documents. | The court has jurisdiction to consider the subpoena and Greene has standing to challenge privilege issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (jurisdictional prerequisites apply to injunctions)
- Territorial Ct. of the Virgin Islands v. Richards, 847 F.2d 108 (3d Cir.1988) (district court may hear motions to quash administrative subpoenas)
- NLRB v. Interbake Foods, LLC, 637 F.3d 492 (4th Cir.2011) (standing to challenge subpoena based on privilege)
- Dir., Office of Thrift Supervision v. Vinson & Elkins, LLP, 124 F.3d 1304 (D.C.Cir.1997) (privilege considerations in subpoena responses)
- Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501 (1935) (attorney-client privilege/work-product protection applicability)
- Amato v. United States, 450 F.3d 46 (1st Cir.2006) (administrative subpoenas enforceable in court proceedings)
- Staten v. Hous. Auth. of Pittsburgh, 638 F.2d 599 (3d Cir.1980) (local housing authorities are not automatically HUD officials for federal question purposes)