Hendricks v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53845
| S.D. Ohio | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs are current or former employees of Total Quality Logistics, LLC (TQL), alleging unpaid overtime under the FLSA and Ohio wage laws; Kenneth Oaks is named as owner/CEO of TQL.
- Defendants issued forty-two subpoenas duces tecum to plaintiffs' former and subsequent employers, and to colleges, seeking broad personnel and educational records.
- Rule 45(b) notice requirements were not followed, as defendants failed to provide prior notice to plaintiffs before serving subpoenas.
- Plaintiffs moved to quash or for a protective order; the court addressed both the notice violation and the subpoenas' scope.
- The court granted the motion to quash, concluding the subpoenas were overly broad and largely irrelevant to the overtime issues, though some subpoenas to subsequent employers were potentially relevant.
- Defendants were ordered to turn over to plaintiffs all materials already received under the subpoenas, without viewing or using them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 45(b) notice defects bar discovery | Plaintiffs: lack of notice prejudices them and should bar or limit discovery | TQL: notice defects are technical and the merits should be considered | Notice violation did not bar consideration; court addressed merits but granted quash on breadth/irrelevance |
| Whether subpoenas to nonparties are overly broad or irrelevant | Subpoenas seek irrelevant/overbroad personal and educational records | Subpoenas could be relevant to exemptions and counterclaims | Subpoenas to former employers/colleges quashed for irrelevance/overbreadth; some subsequent-employer subpoenas narrowly potentially relevant, but quashed unless narrowed |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge subpoenas to nonparties | Plaintiffs have a personal right in their employment records to challenge subpoenas | Plaintiffs have standing to seek quash of subpoenas seeking their records | |
| Whether any narrow set of subpoenas could yield relevant information | Defendants can seek relevant data, but only if properly tailored | Broader subpoenas necessary to prove counterclaims and exemptions | If pursuing relevant information from Ackerman, Donner, Spitler, subpoenas must be narrowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Corrigan v. United States, 68 Fed.Cl. 589 (2005) (exemption status depends on duties performed; relevance required for discovery)