UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 14, 2012
287 FRANKLIN AVENUE RESIDENTS' ASSOCATION, ET AL.,
CHAIM MEISELS, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Orenstein, Magistrate Judge:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The motions to quash pro se plaintiff Jon Sasmor's subpoenas to third-party telephone providers and for related relief are granted in part and denied in part. See Docket Entry ("DE") 79; DE 80. Notwithstanding the defendants' arguments to the contrary, I am persuaded that, with the exceptions noted below, the requested telephone records are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and that their disclosure will not cause unnecessary annoyance, embarrassment, or undue burden to the defendants or to third-parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), (c)(1). I therefore deny the defendants' request to quash the subpoenas in their entirety, and I also deny their requests for other forms of relief, including sanctions against Sasmor and the reimbursement of their costs in litigating the instant motions.
I am persuaded, however, that certain aspects of the subpoenas improperly intrude into the attorney-client relationship between the defendants and their counsel or in other ways impose undue burdens on the subpoena recipients and the persons whose records they seek. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c). To avoid intrusion into the defendants' legal representation, I limit the scope of each subpoena to the time period ending on March 1, 2011, when this litigation began. To avoid imposing undue burdens on persons with no apparent connection to this litigation, I strike Sasmor's demands for records related to telephone numbers 347-397-0038 and 347-971-9650; I conclude that Sasmor's proffered reasons for suspecting that these numbers are associated with the defendants, see DE 92-1, are entirely speculative.*fn1 For a similar reason, I strike the portions of the subpoenas that demand the production of records for "all other phone numbers" belonging to the subscribers of the 29 phone numbers that are specifically identified in the subpoenas; if Sasmor has a basis for seeking specific records associated with a specific number, he may do so.
I direct plaintiff Sasmor to provide a copy of this order to each subpoena recipient and to file proof of such service on the docket no later than March 21, 2012. If any subpoena recipient has already produced information responsive to the portions of the subpoenas which have been stricken, Sasmor must immediately provide all copies of such information in his possession to the court.
JAMES ORENSTEIN U.S. Magistrate Judge