The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Geraldine Soat Brown, United States Magistrate Judge
Before the court is Defendants' Renewed Motion to Quash SMIC's Third-Party Subpoenas Pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3) or in the Alternative for a Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(A)(1). [Dkt 58.] For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted. The subpoenas are quashed and the subpoena recipients, Verizon Wireless and Yahoo, Inc., are ordered not to comply with them.
Special Markets Insurance Consultants, Inc. ("SMIC") alleges that defendants Kent Lynch and Joanna Lynch (collectively, "the Lynches") breached employment contracts and other duties by forming competing entities while they were still employed by SMIC. (Compl. ¶ 2.) [Dkt 1.]
In March 2012, SMIC "served" subpoenas on Verizon Wireless and Yahoo, Inc. (Pl.'s Resp., Ex. A ("Verizon Subpoena") and B ("Yahoo Subpoena").) [Dkt 72-1.]*fn1 The subpoena to Yahoo requires that company to produce, inter alia, for each of at least three private e-mail addresses owned by the Lynches:
[T]he complete e-mail records, including electronic messages, e-mail contents, and any attachments to any email, which was sent from or received by any account holders identified in Paragraph 1 above from September 1, 2010 to date. [and] . . . [A] list of all contacts, or any information stored in any 'contacts' folder or similar directory or subdirectory." (Yahoo Subpoena.)*fn2
The subpoena to Verizon requires the company to produce information for all telephone numbers "associated with" Joanna Lynch or Kent Lynch including, but not limited to, three specific telephone numbers, and for each number provide all incoming and outgoing voice and text message unit details from January 1, 2012 to the present. (Verizon Subpoena.) SMIC states that after the initial hearing before this court, it offered to limit the Verizon subpoena to message unit details and text message details from January 1, 2012 to the present for the two telephone numbers that were maintained and paid for by SMIC. (Pl.'s Resp. Ex. D.)
The Lynches have now moved to quash the subpoena or for a protective order, and SMIC has filed a response to that motion.
SMIC agues that the Lynches do not have standing to move to quash the subpoenas. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3) requires a court ...