Donofrio v. IKEA US Retail, LLC
Donofrio v. IKEA US Retail, LLC
2024 WL 4730585 (E.D. Pa. 2024)
February 1, 2024
Brody, Anita B., United States District Judge
Summary
The court denied IKEA's motion to quash a subpoena for ESI from a third-party attorney, finding that IKEA did not have standing to challenge the subpoena unless it claimed a personal right or privilege. The court also granted a protective order as unopposed, as the Defendants did not oppose it.
Additional Decisions
FRANK DONOFRIO, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
IKEA US RETAIL, LLC, Defendant.
WILLIAM V. ANTONELLI, JR., on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
IKEA HOLDING US, INC., et al., Defendants
BRANDON PAINE, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
IKEA HOLDING US, INC., et al., Defendants
v.
IKEA US RETAIL, LLC, Defendant.
WILLIAM V. ANTONELLI, JR., on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
IKEA HOLDING US, INC., et al., Defendants
BRANDON PAINE, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
IKEA HOLDING US, INC., et al., Defendants
CIVIL ACTION No. 18-599, CIVIL ACTION No. 19-1286, CIVIL ACTION No. 19-723
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Filed February 01, 2024
Counsel
Susan M. Saint-Antoine, Caren N. Gurmankin, Emily R. Derstine Friesen, Evelyn Rose Kallenbach, Laura Carlin Mattiacci, Stephen G. Console, Madison Z. Provorny, Console Mattiacci Law, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Anna D. Norman, Jackson Lewis P.C., Tinton Falls, NJ, for Plaintiff in No. 18-599.Laura Carlin Mattiacci, Susan M. Saint-Antoine, Caren N. Gurmankin, Evelyn Rose Kallenbach, Stephen G. Console, Madison Z. Provorny, Console Mattiacci Law, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff in No. 19-1286.
Caren N. Gurmankin, Evelyn Rose Kallenbach, Holly W. Smith, Laura Carlin Mattiacci, Stephen G. Console, Susan M. Saint-Antoine, Madison Z. Provorny, Console Mattiacci Law LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff in No. 19-723.
Chris R. Pace, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Nashville, TN, David L. Schenberg, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Clayton, MO, Jennifer G. Betts, Patrick J. Fazzini, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, Brandon R. Sher, Emily Santoro, Paul Lancaster Adams, Ogletree Deakins, Philadelphia, PA, Thomas A. Lidbury, Ogletree Deakins, Chicago, IL, Traer E. Cundiff, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., Kansas City, MO, Amanda D. Crawford, for Defendant in No. 18-599.
Chris R. Pace, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Nashville, TN, Jennifer G. Betts, Patrick J. Fazzini, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, Thomas A. Lidbury, Ogletree Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P.C., Chicago, IL, Brandon R. Sher, Emily Santoro, Paul Lancaster Adams, Ogletree Deakins, Philadelphia, PA, Traer E. Cundiff, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., Kansas City, MO, for Defendant Ikea North America Services, LLC in No. 19-1286.
Chris R. Pace, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Nashville, TN, Jennifer G. Betts, Patrick J. Fazzini, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, Thomas A. Lidbury, Ogletree Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P.C., Chicago, IL, Brandon R. Sher, Emily Santoro, Paul Lancaster Adams, Ogletree Deakins, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants Ikea Holding U.S., Inc., Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC in No. 19-1286.
Chris R. Pace, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Nashville, TN, Jennifer G. Betts, Patrick J. Fazzini, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, Paul Lancaster Adams, Brandon R. Sher, Emily Santoro, Ogletree, Deakins, Philadelphia, PA, John G. Stretton, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Stamford, CT, Thomas A. Lidbury, Ogletree Deakins, Chicago, IL, Traer E. Cundiff, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., Kansas City, MO, for Defendants Ikea Holding U.S., Inc., Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC, Ikea North America Services, LLC in No. 19-723.
Brody, Anita B., United States District Judge
ORDER
Footnotes
On July 17, 2023, Plaintiffs' counsel served a subpoena duces tecum upon third-party Christine Burke, Esq., an attorney at the law firm Karpf, Karpf, & Cerutti, P.C., who represented two former IKEA employees in connection with lawsuits brought against IKEA that involved allegations of age discrimination. Donofrio (18-599), ECF No. 328-2 at 2. The third-party subpoena seeks the “entire file (excluding attorney-client privileged communications and work product) concerning the case[s] of [Wagner and DeSanto], including but not limited to, pleadings, depositions, videos, photographs, discovery requests and responses, notes, emails and other documents that refer or relate to the above-referenced case.” Id. IKEA moves to enter an order quashing the subpoena. ECF No. 328. As a general rule, a party lacks standing under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45(c)(3) to challenge a subpoena issued to a non-party unless the party claims a personal right or privilege with respect to the documents requested in the subpoena. See First Sealord Sur. v. Durkin & Devries, Ins. Agency, 918 F. Supp. 2d 362, 382 (E.D. Pa. 2013). Here, the subpoena explicitly excludes “attorney-client privileged communications and work product,” and IKEA does not raise any other privilege. Instead, IKEA argues for the first time in its reply brief that it has a “personal right” because the subpoena seeks documents from litigation to which IKEA was a party and that IKEA has a “personal interest in preventing Plaintiffs from circumventing the court's [prior discovery order] by subpoenaing a third-party.” ECF No. 332 at 2-3 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs properly served the subpoena during the discovery period only after IKEA failed to produce the Wagner and DeSanto case documents upon Plaintiffs' request for “[a]ll documents concerning complaints of age discrimination (including both formal and informal, and both internal and external) made by IKEA employees.” See ECF No. 330 at 9. IKEA has failed to sufficiently establish standing to quash this subpoena.