Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge Sheila Finnegan
For reasons set forth in this Order, Non-Party Randstad Inhouse Services, L.P.'s Motion to Quash  is granted.
O[ For further details see text below.] Mailed notice.
*Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
Defendant The Placers, Ltd. d/b/a Randstad ("The Placers") provides temporary staffing personnel to businesses and individuals in Illinois through a branch office in Chicago. Plaintiffs Fernando Rosales, Servando Ayvar and Juan Herrera all worked for The Placers at various times between August 2002 and December 31, 2006, and were covered by a vacation policy they claim violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid vacation benefits on behalf of themselves and a class of "other persons similarly situated" pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
On June 23, 2010, Plaintiffs issued a Rule 45 subpoena to non-party Randstad Inhouse Services, L.P. ("RIS"). The subpoena asks RIS to produce a variety of documents, including handbooks, personnel policies, records "relating to the business relationship between [RIS] and [The Placers]," "documents showing the number of persons employed in Illinois by [RIS]" from August 17, 2002 to the present, and documents showing "the locations of business offices of [RIS] in Illinois between January 1, 2002 and the present." (Doc. 95-1, at 5). RIS responded on July 12, 2010 with a motion for limited intervention and to quash the subpoena. This Court granted the motion for limited intervention without objection on July 22, 2010, and set a briefing schedule on the motion to quash.
Shortly thereafter, on August 17, 2010, The Placers filed a motion with the district court for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 104). In light of this motion, the Court deferred ruling on RIS's motion to quash until the district court determined whether the case would proceed. On March 4, 2011, the district court denied The Placers's motion. (Doc. 114, 115). This Court, in turn, now grants RIS's motion to quash.
"When documents are sought from a nonparty, the usual method of compelling production is via a subpoena under [Rule] 45." Hobley v. Burge, 433 F.3d 946, 949 (7th Cir. 2006). "[T]he scope of material obtainable by a Rule 45 subpoena is as broad as permitted under the discovery rules." Wallace v. Hounshel, No. 1:06-CV-01560-RLY-TAB, 2008 WL 89933, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 2, 2008). In other words, "[a] subpoena will survive a motion to quash when it designates topics that are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence." Stock v. Integrated Health Plan, Inc., 241 F.R.D. 618, 621 (S.D. Ill. 2007). At the same time, "[s]ubpoenaed non-parties have the right to challenge the burdensomeness and expense of responding to the subpoena." Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., No. 07 C 4507, 2010 WL 4659535, at *5 (N.D.Ill. June 29, 2010) (quoting Thayer v. Chiczewski, 257 F.R.D. 466, 469 (N.D. Ill. 2009)). Indeed, "[n]on-party status is a significant factor to be considered in determining whether the burden imposed by a subpoena is undue." Whitlow v. Martin, 263 F.R.D. 507, 512 (C.D. Ill. 2009).
RIS argues that the subpoena should be quashed because Plaintiffs (1) did not comply with Rule 45(b)(2); (2) seek irrelevant information that would be unduly burdensome to produce; and (3) seek information that is ...