*1 This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Quash or Modify the Subpoena (#40) filed by a non-party, the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (“University”). Plaintiffs filed a Response (#47) in opposition. For the reasons provided below, the University's Motion to Quash or Modify the Subpoena (#40) is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

Plaintiffs, two former students and one professor, are suing former University of Illinois Professor Gary Xu (“Xu”). The first Plaintiff, Xingjian Sun (“Sun”), is a former student, and she attended the University from 2012 to 2016. Sun claims Xu raped her, forced her to get an abortion, beat her, and attempted to hit her with a car during their two-year relationship from 2013 until 2015. The second Plaintiff, Xing Zhao (“Zhao”), was a graduate student at the University from 2013 until 2015. Zhao claims Xu sexually harassed her and took credit for her work. (Plaintiffs' Complaint #1, p. 4). The third Plaintiff, Ao Wang (“Professor Wang”), is a professor at Wesleyan University. Professor Wang claims that in 2018 Xu tried to ruin his career in retaliation for an online article Professor Wang wrote about Xu abusing female students.

The three Plaintiffs filed a ten-count Complaint against Xu. (Complaint #1, p. 70-85). Specifically, the three Plaintiffs alleged Xu is liable under federal and state law for Sex Trafficking, Forced Labor, Trafficking in Servitude, Gender Violence, Involuntary Servitude, Trafficking in Persons, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. (Complaint #1, p. 70-85). Zhao and Sun allege the facts that underly their claims occurred in 2013 and 2015. (Complaint #1, p. 7-8). Professor Wang alleges that the facts that underly his claims against Xu occurred in 2018. (Complaint #1, 66-69, 83-85).

On January 5, 2021, Plaintiffs served the University with a subpoena that commanded it to produce: (1) all documents related to Xu from his application for employment in 2001 through present; and (2) all documents related to Zhao and Sun from the time of their applications to the University until present.[1] (University Br. #40, p. 3). On January 19, 2021, the University sent a letter to Plaintiffs objecting to the subpoena and arguing the subpoena requested irrelevant documents that have no relation to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' claims. (University Letter #40-2, p. 2-3). On February 12, 2021, Plaintiffs responded to the University's objection and narrowed their requests for the documents that are related to Xu. For the documents related to Xu, Plaintiffs excluded all: (1) documents pertaining to male undergraduate students unless the documents discuss Plaintiffs or implicate Xu in wrongdoing; and (2) documents pertaining to non-party students from prior to 2013. See (Plaintiffs' Letter #47-3, p. 2).

In a responsive letter on February 19, 2021, the University asserted its same objections and argued that the subpoena sought irrelevant documents that were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (University Letter #40-4, p. 3). Additionally, the University suggested the parties modify the subpoena in the following manner:

(University Letter #40-4, p. 4-5). Plaintiffs rejected the University's proposal, and the University filed a Motion to Quash or Modify the Subpoena in response. (Plaintiffs' Letter #40-5, p. 2-3); (University Br. #40, p. 1).

II. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 45, a party has the right to subpoena a non-party for “documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things[.]” Fed. R. Civ. 45(a)(1)(C). Discovery is limited to nonprivileged matters “relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “While information need not be admissible at trial to be relevant, a request for information must appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.“ Uppal v. Rosalind Franklin Univ. of Med. & Sci., 124 F. Supp. 3d 811, 814 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

A court may quash or modify a subpoena if it “subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). “To determine the existence of undue burden, this Court compares the burden of compliance with the benefit of production of the material sought.” City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., 2011 WL 5118601 at *3 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2011) (citing Northwestern Mem'l Hosp. v. Ashcroft, 362 F.2d 923, 927 (7th Cir. 2004)). Courts may analyze several factors when deciding whether a subpoena is an undue burden including “relevance, the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the document request, the time period covered by it, the particularity with which the documents are requested, and the burden imposed.” Whitlow v. Martin, 263 F.R.D. 507, 512 (C.D. Ill. 2009) (citations omitted).

III. Analysis

Plaintiffs argue their subpoena's document requests are narrowly tailored, reasonable, relevant, and do not create an undue burden. (Plaintiffs' Br. #47, p. 9-12). Plaintiffs attempt to justify the scope of their requests because they exclude: (1) documents pertaining to male undergraduate students unless the documents discuss Plaintiffs or implicate Xu in wrongdoing; and (2) documents pertaining to non-party students from prior to 2013. (Plaintiffs' Letter #47-3, p. 2). Additionally, Plaintiffs argue the document requests related to Sun and Zhao are justified because they are for a limited time period and are directly relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. (Plaintiffs' Br. #47, p. 11).

*3 In response, the University argues that the document requests relating to Xu are overbroad because these requests seek documents from 2001 until 2018 although Plaintiffs' allegations only pertain to 2013-2015 and 2018. Additionally, the University argues the document requests relating to Xu are overbroad because the requests encompass documents relating to numerous non-party students that Xu taught. The University further reasons that Plaintiffs' subpoena encompasses irrelevant documents, including non-party students' assignments, class attendance, grades, and other student information that is not relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. (University Br. #40, p. 9).

Plaintiffs' amended subpoena is overbroad in scope because it commands the University to produce documents that are not relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. For example, for the documents relating to Xu, Plaintiffs' amended subpoena commands the University to produce numerous irrelevant documents including: (1) all academic papers that Xu wrote during his almost twenty years at the University; (2) all grades that he assigned to graduate students in his classes from 2013 until present; and (3) all assignments that Xu assigned students that are still in the University's possession. Plaintiffs' brief does not explain how these documents are relevant to their claims. (Plaintiffs' Br. #47, p. 9-11).

Additionally, the amended subpoena, as it relates to Sun and Zhao, also is overbroad. It requires the University to produce documents that are not relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. For example, Plaintiffs' subpoena's terms require the University to produce Sun and Zhao's: (1) class assignments, (2) meal plans, (3) housing plans, (4) communications with other professors, and (5) communications with other students.[3] None of these documents are relevant.

Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3), the Court modifies the subpoena to limit its requests only to information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Uppal, 124 F. Supp. 3d at 814. The Court adopts most of the University's proposed amendments to the subpoena. The Court modifies the University's proposed subpoena, for documents related to Xu, to remove the time limitation of August 1, 2012.[4] Any evidence that Xu engaged in abusive activity prior to August 1, 2012, would be relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' need for these relevant documents outweighs the limited additional burden on the University to locate and produce them. Accordingly, the Court amends Request No. 1 and orders the University to produce the following:

Additionally, the Court adopts the University's proposed subpoena for the documents related to Sun and Zhao. The Court orders the University to produce:

*4 The University shall obtain these documents from the twenty-five custodians on which the parties previously agreed. (Plaintiffs' Br. #47-4, p. 4); (University Br. #40-4, p. 4). The court-revised subpoena will limit the burden on the University while allowing Plaintiffs to obtain relevant evidence needed to prove their cases.

IV. Conclusion

The University's Motion to Quash or Amend the Subpoena (#40) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court MODIFIES Plaintiffs' subpoena as specified in Section III(A).

ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2021.

Xu worked as a professor at the University of Illinois from 2002 until August 2018. (Complaint #1, p. 6-7.)

The Court combined the University's discovery proposal for documents related to Sun and Zhao because the language is identical for both proposals. (University Letter #40-4, p. 4-5).

Plaintiffs' brief does not explain how these documents are relevant to their claims. (Plaintiffs' Br. #47, p. 9-11).

The University's proposed subpoena was limited to documents that were created from August 1, 2012, until the date the subpoena was issued.