*1 This matter was opened to the Court by way of a Motion filed by Plaintiffs Staff4Jobs, LLC d/b/a Lyneer Staffing Solutions and Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC (collectively, “Staff4Jobs” or “Plaintiffs”), seeking to quash a third-party subpoena served by Defendant List Logistics, LLC (“List Logistics”) (“Motion to Quash”) [Docket Entry No. 31]. List Logistics filed a letter brief in opposition (“Opposition”) [Docket Entry No. 36]. Plaintiffs filed a letter Reply Brief (“Reply”) [Docket Entry No. 37].

The Court has considered the parties’ submissions without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Quash is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND[1]

Plaintiffs provided staffing services to Defendants List Logistics and George Yfantopulos (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs contend that they complied with the parties’ agreement but Defendants failed to compensate them for the services. The Amended Complaint alleges breach of contract and quantum meruit claims against Defendants. See generally [Docket Entry No. 20].

List Logistics has counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and promissory estoppel. Specifically, it asserts that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the policies and procedures in place for screening, interviewing, and assigning employees. Further, List Logistics maintains that Plaintiffs hired undocumented workers to provide services on its accounts. See generally Answer to Amended Complaint [Docket Entry No. 26].

On March 13, 2020, List Logistics served third-party Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C. (“KK&C”) with a document subpoena. Notice of Subpoena, attached as Exh. A[2] to the Certification of Andrew P. Chigounis, Esq. (the “Heckman Subpoena”) [Docket Entry No. 31-3]. The Heckman Subpoena seeks “[a]ll discovery exchanged in the action Jennifer Heckman v. Lyneer International LLC, Case No. 3:13-cv-05835 ... including, without limitation, deposition transcripts and exhibits, document demands and productions, interrogatories, and admissions.” Id. KK&C represented plaintiff Heckman in her suit as a former employee against four inter-related staffing companies, including Lyneer International LLC, that have ties to Plaintiffs in this case. See Opposition at 2.[3]

KK&C has not filed any objection to the Subpoena, nor has it filed a Motion to Quash of its own or joined Plaintiffs’ Motion.

II. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

A. PLAINTIFFS’ ARGUMENTS

Plaintiffs argue that the Heckman Subpoena is beyond the scope of permissible discovery, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B) (“Moving Brief”) at 1 [Docket Entry No. 31-1]. Additionally, Plaintiffs note that Defendants have yet to produce evidence of Staff4Jobs’ alleged hiring and staffing of undocumented workers, nor have Defendants provided any support for the allegation that Plaintiffs’ hiring practices were inadequate. Id. at 4. Staff4Jobs contends that the only discovery List Logistics has produced relevant to this claim is the identification of five allegedly undocumented workers. Id. As a result, Plaintiffs suggest that the Heckman Subpoena is no more than a fishing expedition, especially given that the Heckman case concluded seven years ago and raised unrelated claims against different defendants. Id.

*2 In their Reply, Plaintiffs contend that they provided Defendants with their confidential handbook, which details their screening procedures, and have offered to produce additional witnesses, including those responsible for human resources operations. Reply at 1.

B. LIST LOGISTIC'S ARGUMENTS

List Logistics first challenges Staff4Jobs’ standing to bring the Motion to Quash. Opposition at 2–3. It argues that Plaintiffs cannot assert privilege over the documents that List Logistics seeks, nor can it assert burden. Id at 3, 4.

On the merits of the discovery it seeks, List Logistics maintains that its subpoena for documents from the Heckman matter is relevant to its claim that Staff4Jobs failed to properly screen employees and hired undocumented workers—a central issue to its defense and counterclaim in this case. Opposition at 1–2. In this regard, List Logistics contends that it identified five allegedly undocumented hires and it is entitled to further discovery related to Plaintiffs’ employee screening process. Id. at 2. Last, List Logistics claims that Plaintiffs have resisted discovery as to these undocumented hires and their hiring practices in general. Id. at 4.

List Logistics argues that discovery from the Heckman matter is relevant because Jennifer Heckman, the plaintiff in that suit, served as Director of Human Resources and had responsibilities including personnel documentation, new hire processes, and immigration/alien verification. Id. at 2 (citing Complaint filed in the Heckman matter (“Heckman Complaint”) ¶20, attached as Exh. B to the Certification of Andrew Chigounis, Esq. [Docket Entry No. 31-4]). In her suit, Ms. Heckman alleged that her employers “knowingly hired illegal and/or undocumented workers.” Id. at 2 (citing Heckman Complaint ¶21). Under these circumstances, Defendants view Ms. Heckman's litigation as a source of reliable information regarding Plaintiffs’ hiring practices. Id. at 3.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a motion to quash or modify a subpoena must be brought by the individual to whom it was directed. See Thomas v. Marina Assocs., 202 F.R.D. 433, 434–5 (E.D. Pa. 2001). Nevertheless, “a party has standing to bring a Motion to Quash or modify a subpoena upon a non-party when the party claims a personal right or privilege in the production sought.” Lexpath Techs. Holdings, Inc. v. Welch, Civ. No. 13-5379, 2015 WL 13850972, at *2 (D.N.J. June 29, 2015) (quoting Collins v. John Does 1-13, Civ. No. 12-7620, 2013 WL 3466833, at *2 (D.N.J. July 10, 2013)); see also Pleasant Gardens Realty Corp. v. H. Kohnstamm & Co., Inc., Civ. No. 08-5582, 2009 WL 2982632, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2009) (finding that the United States, as the former employer, had a protectable right in the information sought that conveyed standing for purposes of seeking to quash subpoena).

On a timely motion, the court must quash or modify a subpoena that requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter or subjects a person to undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii)–(iv). The party seeking to quash or modify the subpoena must satisfy the requirements of Rule 45. Weinstein v. Brisman, Civ. No. 18-3910, 2020 WL 1485960, at *5 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2020) (quoting Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Civ. No. 18-16593, 2019 WL 4745360, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2019)). An undue burden exists when “the subpoena is ‘unreasonable or oppressive.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Lazaridis, 865 F. Supp. 2d 521, 524 (D.N.J. 2011)).

*3 Federal courts conduct a burden-shifting analysis to resolve discovery disputes. Arena v. RiverSource Life Ins. Co., Civ. No. 16-5063, 2017 WL 6513056, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2017). The burden of establishing the relevance of the discovery being sought begins with the party requesting the discovery. Id. Once that initial burden has been met, the objecting party “must state with specificity the objection and how it relates to the particular request being opposed.” Id. (quoting Harding v. Dana Transp., Inc., 914 F. Supp. 1084, 1102 (D.N.J. 1996). The objecting party “shall use common sense and reason, and hyper-technical, quibbling, or evasive objections will be viewed unfavorably.” Id. (quoting Williams v. Acxiom Corp., Civ. No. 15-8464, 2017 WL 945017, at *2 (D.N.J. 2017)).

The following factors are considered in determining the subpoena's relevance: the party's need for the production; the nature and importance of the litigation; the relevance of the material; the breadth of the request for production; the time period covered by the request; the particularity with which the documents are described; and the burden imposed on the subpoenaed party. Weinstein, 2020 WL 1485960, at *5 (quoting In re Lazaridis, 865 F. Supp. 2d 521, 524 (D.N.J. 2011)). “Generally, courts afford greater protection to non-parties in discovery, and non-party subpoenas must meet a higher standard of relevance than subpoenas directed toward parties.” Id. at *6 (quoting Conforti v. St. Joseph's Healthcare System, Inc., Civ. No. 17-50, 2019 WL 3847994, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2019)).

IV. ANALYSIS

The Court starts its analysis by considering whether Staff4Jobs, as the Movant here, has standing to bring this Motion to Quash. While a motion to quash is generally brought by the party from whom discovery is sought, there are certain instances in which the party to the suit, not the party subject to the subpoena, may bring a Rule 45 motion. Moreover, although lack of relevance is not among the list of reasons to quash a subpoena set forth in Rule 45, courts have incorporated it as a factor when considering a motion to quash. Moffitt v Tunkhannock Area School District, Civ. No. 13-1519, 2016 WL 4271773, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2016). Even if the moving party has no standing as traditionally considered under Rule 45, it may nonetheless seek to prevent the discovery pursuant to Rule 26. See, e.g., Aetrex Worldwide, Inc. v. Burten Distribution, Inc., Civ. No. 13-1140, 2014 WL 7073466, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 15, 2014) (moving party “does have standing under Rule 26 to move for a protective order to enjoin the production of irrelevant information for subpoenas issued to non-parties”).

Here, the Court does not need to decide the issue of standing under Rule 45. As a matter of the Court's inherent authority to engage in case management, I find that it is appropriate to consider the motion as one for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26, given the relevance concerns it raises. See Khosroabadi v. Mazgani Soc. Serv., Inc., Civ. No. 17-644, 2018 WL 1858153, at *3 (C.D. Cal. March 1, 2018) (under Rule 26 and the discretion granted to courts to manage discovery, a court may sua sponte grant a protective order for good cause shown); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

List Logistics asserts that the discovery gathered in the Heckman matter is relevant to its claims because Ms. Heckman served as Director of Human Resources for a Lyneer entity with ties to Plaintiffs in this case. In that role, Ms. Heckman participated in crafting hiring policies and procedures for all four organizations. Opposition at 10. List Logistics also argues that documents from the Heckman matter are relevant to its counterclaim. Id.

*4 The Court has reviewed List Logistics’ argument as to relevance and finds it unpersuasive. The Heckman matter concluded nearly seven years ago, and the allegations centered on violations of employment protections and retaliation. Heckman alleged that during her short tenure—six months—the defendants in that case participated in several unlawful practices. Heckman Complaint ¶21–22. While Heckman's Complaint may have alleged intentional use and hiring of undocumented employees, this was at best only a portion of her complaint. Id.

Further, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ argument that by receiving the documents from KK&C, they would be in a better position to question Staff4Jobs about its hiring practices and whether it currently follows those implemented by Ms. Heckman. See Opposition at 3. Defendants have already been provided with a copy of Plaintiffs’ confidential handbook, which details their screening procedures. Reply at 1. The Court is hard pressed to understand how litigation materials from seven years ago are more indicative of Plaintiffs’ recent hiring and screening practices. Moreover, Plaintiffs have said they are willing to provide Defendants with additional witnesses, including those responsible for human resources. Reply at 1. The value of Ms. Heckman's purported knowledge of the policies and any relevance to the present matter are too far attenuated.

Finally, the overly broad request for all of the discovery from the Heckman matter, which involved a host of other claims even further removed from the issues alleged in this case, is not in any way narrowed to elicit information relevant to this action.

For these reasons, the Court finds that the discovery sought by Defendants is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for relief.

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

IT IS on this 19th day of October, 2020,

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoena to Non-Party Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C. [Docket Entry No. 31], which the Court construes as a Motion for a Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26, is hereby GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs serve a copy of this Order within 5 days on Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.