*1 On May 20, 2021, Counsel for Plaintiff Joann Wright Haysbert (“Haysbert”) filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena to Hampton University issued by Defendants Bloomin' Brands, Inc. (“Bloomin' Brands”) and Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC (“Outback”) (collectively “Defendants”). Pl.'s Mot. to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 100) (“Pl.'s Mot. to Quash”). The subpoena arose from litigation regarding an alleged slip and fall at the Chesapeake Outback Steakhouse on May 23, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of this incident, she suffered physical injuries including a permanent traumatic brain injury. Pl.'s Reply to Response to Mot. to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 120, at 2) (“Pl.'s Reply”).

Defendants served a subpoena on Plaintiff's employer Hampton University. The subpoena commanded the production of all documents pertaining to the Plaintiff including: (1) her entire personnel file; (2) any evaluations; (3) any recommendations; (4) documents related to any speeches she has given while employed by Hampton University; (5) any papers she has authored; (6) emails she has written since the beginning of her employment; (7) documents related to any ceremonies that she has participated in; (8) documents related to any marketing materials and videos she has appeared in; (9) documents and/or videos of any presentations or speeches she has given; (10) any letters or other correspondence from Haysbert to alumni, parents, students, staff, and other faculty; and (11) all employment records and documents, including, but not limited to, leave and earning statements, records of sick leave, annual leave, pay records, and employee evaluations records, medical records, medical bills, medical reports, Workers' Compensation records, correspondence and investigation materials, Industrial Commission complaints, records, correspondence and investigation materials. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. to Quash, Ex. A, Subpoena (ECF No. 101-2, at 5). Haysbert objected to the subpoena on the grounds that it subjected her employer to undue burden and expense, as well as on the basis that it sought documents that were not relevant to the parties' claims or defenses. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. to Quash (ECF No. 101, at 1) (“Pl.'s Mem.”). Defendants responded that the documents sought by the subpoena were relevant to the issue of damages, as Plaintiff had “put her mental state, condition, capabilities, and performance at issue in this case.” Defs.' Opp'n to Mot. to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 112, at 1) (“Defs.' Opp'n”). On June 15, 2021, the parties convened via Zoom for a hearing on Haysbert's motion. This order memorializes my ruling granting in part and denying in part Haysbert's motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides:

*2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information regarding Haysbert's work performance before and after the alleged slip and fall is relevant to whether Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury and Plaintiff's damages. As Defendants explained, “Plaintiff's employment records with Hampton University provide a pre-incident baseline for her performance, capacity, and functional abilities that is essential to compare to her post-incident status and abilities.” Defs.' Opp'n (ECF No. 112, at 4); see also Stewart v. Vcu Health Sys. Auth., No. 3:09cv738-HEH, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172357, at *5-6 (E.D. Va. Aug. 22, 2011) (“[A] party must make a showing that the particular personnel files sought are relevant to the subject matter involved in the case.” (citation omitted)). Although Haysbert asserts that Defendants will be able to learn about Plaintiff's medical condition from Plaintiff's experts and an Independent Medical Examination (“IME”), Pl.'s Reply (ECF No. 120, at 4-5), the fact that Defendants can seek to conduct discovery in a different manner does not establish that their method is improper. Plaintiff's work performance is also relevant to the questions of her mental state and damages. Furthermore, such information is not cumulative, as it is of a different nature.

However, I agree with Haysbert that the subpoena, as issued, is overly broad, as it seeks Haysbert's entire employment record with Hampton University, where she has been employed for over thirty years, as well as all speeches, emails, and correspondence from this time period. Haysbert's entire employment history is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case, as it would produce employment records which would not bear on Haysbert's mental state immediately prior to or following the incident. In addition, it would expose Hampton University to undue burden and expense. It would also expose third parties' correspondence with Haysbert which may involve communications of a confidential nature. Although currently overbroad, it is not necessary to entirely quash the subpoena, which can be limited to documents that are potentially relevant and proportional. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)(C)(iii) (allowing courts to limit discovery if it is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)). Defendants are entitled to seek discovery that is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case and Plaintiff has not established that producing a narrower set of information would unduly burden Hampton University or that the sole purpose of the subpoena is “to harass Plaintiff's employer.” Pl.'s Mem. (ECF No. 101, at 1).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Haysbert's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Hampton University is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The subpoena is hereby modified to include only documents from May 2017 to the present. Additionally, the subpoena is modified to exclude categories (4), (6), (9), and (10), which address presentations and speeches given by the Plaintiff, as well as emails and correspondence. The University shall produce such documents to Counsel for the Defendant within 14 days from the date of this Order. Any documents obtained via this subpoena are to be used only for the purposes of this litigation and are not to be disclosed to the public.[2]

The clerk is directed to deliver a copy of this Order to Counsel for Plaintiff and to counsel for Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Norfolk, Virginia

2021.06.16 14:17:54 -04'00'