Li v. China Merchants Bank Co., LTD., 1:22-cv-09309

The case involves the plaintiff, Li, who is claiming emotional distress damages after losing her job with China Merchants Bank during the COVID-19 pandemic, when she worked from home.
Defendants issued a non-party deposition subpoena to the plaintiff's husband, Yongkai Xie, as he was the only likely eyewitness to her alleged emotional distress due to pandemic-related isolation.
Plaintiff moved to quash the subpoena, asserting claims of marital privilege and improper process, arguing that the deposition would seek privileged communications.
Defendants argued the subpoena was proper, that Li lacked standing to quash, and that not all potential testimony is privileged—citing that only confidential communications, not observations, are privileged.
The court reviewed correspondence from both parties, found deficiencies in their meet-and-confer efforts, and admonished both to better confer on discovery disputes in the future.
Plaintiff’s motion to quash was denied without prejudice, with instructions to meet and confer and for any renewed motion to identify specifically which testimony would allegedly be privileged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to Quash Non-party Subpoena	Li has standing based on marital privilege	Li lacks standing; only recipient (Xie) can object	Li has standing to object based on privilege
Scope of Marital Communications Privilege	All testimony re: marital relationship is privileged	Only confidential communications are privileged	Some but not all testimony may be privileged
Permissibility of Deposing Plaintiff's Spouse	Deposition is improper due to privilege	Spouses may testify about observations, not privileged	Deposition may proceed; privilege can be raised as needed
Adequacy of Meet-and-Confer	Plaintiff claims compliance	Defendants say substance was not discussed	Meet-and-confer inadequate; parties admonished

Langford v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.2d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975) (standing to raise privilege objections to third-party discovery)
Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (1954) (scope of marital communications privilege; applies only to communications intended to be confidential)
United States v. Smith, 533 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1976) (marital communications privilege limited to intended messages)
United States v. Estes, 793 F.2d 465 (2d Cir. 1986) (acts observed by spouse not protected by the communication privilege)
United States v. 281 Syosset Woodbury Rd., 71 F.3d 1067 (2d Cir. 1995) (testimony of spouse generally not privileged in civil proceedings)