Order | Filed: September 28, 2026
| Entered: September 28, 2026
Adenyinka v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC et al
Torts/Pers Inj: Other Personal Injury | Texas Northern
Order on Motion to Quash
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Ayoade Adeyinka's 71 Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum to Medical City Dallas Hospital and for Protective Order.
Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC explains that it "served a subpoena on [Plaintiff's prior employer] Medical City Dallas, seeking his personnel files so that it may ascertain relevant information such as Plaintiff's past earnings, any needed medical leave, the dates of Plaintiff's employment, and the reasoning behind Plaintiff's termination with his employer at the time of the incident."
Adeyinka asks the Court to quash the subpoena or, alternatively, to enter a protective order limiting production to narrowly tailored employment and wage records relevant to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit. Adeyinka explains that the subpoena seeks "production of virtually every employment-related document concerning Plaintiff from January 1, 2020 through the present" by seeking "broad categories of confidential personnel information wholly unrelated to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit, including disciplinary records, performance evaluations, benefits information, disability claims, workers' compensation records, tax forms, attendance records, and all electronically stored information concerning Plaintiff."
"[A] person [served with a subpoena] can timely file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A). Under Rule 45(d)(3)(A), [o]n timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden." FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(3)(A). MetroPCS v. Thomas, 327 F.R.D. 600, 607 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (cleaned up).
And, under Rule 45(d)(3), "[a] party, although not in possession or control of the materials sought in a subpoena and not the person to whom the subpoena is directed, has standing to file a motion to quash or modify under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) if he has a personal right or privilege in the subject matter of the subpoena or a sufficient interest in it." Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Software, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 3d 925, 934 (N.D. Tex. 2017).
But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 "provides specific protections to non-parties that may only be enforced through objections by the non-party or a motion to quash a subpoena." Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil Consultants, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-2025-K-BN, 2022 WL 1624785, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 23, 2022). Even if Adeyinka has standing to bring a motion to quash the subpoena, "that standing does not go so far as to allow [Adeyinka] to challenge a non-party subpoena on the grounds that it unduly burdens the non-party." Payne v. Forest River, Inc., Civ. A. No. 13-679-JWD-RLB, 2014 WL 7359059, at *5 (M.D. La. Dec. 23, 2014).
Adeyinka contends that the subpoena is overbroad, seeks irrelevant and confidential information, invades Plaintiff's privacy interests, and is not proportional to the needs of the case and, so, should be quashed or substantially narrowed
Insofar as Adeyinka asserts that the materials sought are allegedly overbroad and exceed the scope of permitted discovery under Rule 26(b)(1), "a party has standing to move for a protective order pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(c) seeking to limit the scope of discovery, even if the party does not have standing pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 45(d) to bring a motion to quash a third-party subpoena." Puradigm, LLC v. DBG Grp. Invs., LLC, No. 3:23-cv-216-B, 2023 WL 6883656, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2023) (cleaned up). And, "under Rule 26(c)(1), a party may appropriately challenge a subpoena as facially overbroad. And a party may seek a protective order on the basis of lack of relevance or proportionality as to third-party discovery." Id. at *5 (cleaned up).
The Court agrees that many categories of information that Defendant seeks are too attenuated to the claims and defenses in this slip-and-fall case, even considering that slip-and-fall case, even considering that Adeyinka pleads for damages that include, among other things, lost wages in the past and loss of earning capacity in the future. The Court is not persuaded that Defendant may appropriately seek disciplinary history and performance records even though Defendant argues that they are "relevant to topics such as the ability to return to gainful employment as Plaintiff attempts to return to the workforce."
The Court enters a protective order that limit... (truncated)