United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
Case No. 16-cv-1690 pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (the Underlying
MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
cause is before the Court on Bank of Springfield's Motion
to Quash Subpoena Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45 (d/e 1). Because the subpoena compels compliance at a
location more than 100 miles from where Bank of Springfield
is located or regularly transacts business and is unduly
burdensome, the Motion is GRANTED.
about May 3, 2017, Matthew Raap, the plaintiff in the
above-captioned matter in Wisconsin (the Underlying
Litigation), served a subpoena to produce documents on the
Bank of Springfield. The subpoena was directed to Tom
Marantz, Bank of Springfield's Chief Executive Officer,
in Springfield, Illinois. The subpoena commanded the
production of the following:
All documents reflecting your relationship with Brier &
Thorn including, but not limited to, all emails, texts,
messaging, memos, notes, letters, proposals, invoices, bills,
payment records, purchase orders, correspondence, summaries,
evaluations, assessments, reviews, accou[n]ting records, and
all other communications or documents reflecting your
involvement with Brier & Thorn and/or the work it
performed for your company.
Mot., Ex. 1 (d/e 1) (the subpoena was issued by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin).
The subpoena directed Bank of Springfield to produce the
documents on or before May 19, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. to Krystal
Williams-Oby at 1402 Pankratz Street, Suite 103, Madison
above-captioned matter involves a suit by a former employee
of Brier & Thorn, Inc. (Brier & Thorn), an IT risk
management firm. See Raap v. Brier & Thorn,
Inc., United States District Court, Eastern District of
Wisconsin, Case No. 2:16-cv-01690-JPS, Compl. (d/e 1)
(alleging a Title VII claim and pendent state law claims for
quantum meruit and unjust enrichment). Plaintiff alleges that
Brier & Thorn terminated him because of his Christian
faith, for sharing his Christian faith with others on his
personal Facebook page, and for openly discussing his faith
with business associates. A motion for a protective order
barring non-party subpoenas filed by Brier & Thorn is
pending in the Underlying Litigation. See id., Mot.
(d/e 13) (filed May 17, 2017).
17, 2017, Bank of Springfield filed the Motion to Quash at
issue herein. Plaintiff has not filed a response. Therefore,
the Court presumes Plaintiff has no objection to the motion.
CDIL-LR 7.1(B)(2) (“If no response is timely filed, the
presiding judge will presume there is no opposition to the
motion and may rule without further notice to the
THE MOTION TO QUASH
Motion to Quash contains the following allegations, supported
by the affidavit of Lynn P. Bandy, the Senior Vice President
and Chief Operations Officer of Bank of Springfield.
See Motion, Bandy Aff., Ex. 2 (d/e 1).
Springfield is an Illinois banking institution with its
principal place of business in Springfield, Illinois. Bandy
Aff. ¶ 2. Bank of Springfield does not regularly
transact business within 100 miles of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
where the Underlying Litigation is pending, or within 100
miles of Madison, Wisconsin, where compliance is commanded by
the subpoena. Id. ¶ 3. Bank of
Springfield's branch location closest to Wisconsin is in
Springfield, Illinois. Id. ¶ 2.
Springfield contracted with the defendant in the Underlying
Lawsuit, Brier & Thorn, a San Diego, California, based
company. Id. ¶ 4. Under the contract, Brier
& Thorn provided annual penetration testing of Bank of
Springfield's externally-facing internet servers and
internal network to identify vulnerabilities in the
environment that could be exploited by threats from the
Internet and from inside the network. Id. ¶ 4.
Bank of Springfield contends that the broad nature of the
documents sought by the subpoena includes certain protected
matter, including the confidential results of the testing and
other protected bank information, as well as the
correspondence related to said testing and results.
Id. ¶ 5.
Springfield requests that the Court quash the subpoena
because it requires disclosure of documents more than 100
miles from where Bank of Springfield is located and regularly
transacts business. Bank of Springfield further requests that
the Court quash the subpoena because the subpoena is unduly
burdensome. Bank of Springfield points out that the dispute
between Plaintiff and Defendant is based on an employment
dispute, such that the results of Bank of ...