Jaskiewicz v. RLM Underground, LLC

Jaskiewicz · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · June 30, 2025 · No. 24-2588-HLT-GEB

Summary

This United States District Court for the District of Kansas order resolves the plaintiff's oral motion to quash or modify a subpoena directed at his personal Gmail account. The court determined the plaintiff had standing to challenge the subpoena but found the requested emails were relevant to the defendant's claims regarding breach of an employment agreement and mitigation of damages. While rejecting the relevance objection, the court agreed the subpoena was facially overbroad and narrowed its temporal scope and subject matter limitations. The motion was granted in part and denied in part, with specific deadlines established for issuing a revised subpoena and denying the plaintiff's attorney's fee request due to a failure to confer.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
Writing for the Court
Gwynne E. Birzer
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
Decision date
June 30, 2025
Docket number
24-2588-HLT-GEB
Procedural posture
Plaintiff orally moved to quash or modify a subpoena directed to Google, LLC seeking information from his personal Gmail account and requested attorney's fees. The court granted the motion in part, denied it in part, narrowed the subpoena, and denied fees.
Standard of review
Discovery-subpoena objections were evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, with the scope of subpoena discovery treated as coextensive with the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b).
Precedential value
unpublished district court order
Parties
Thomas E. Jaskiewicz v. RLM Underground, LLC
Disposition
other

Topics

discovery disputecivil procedureemployment contractscommercial litigation

Practice areas

civil procedurediscoveryemployment law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff had standing to move to quash or modify a subpoena directed to his personal Gmail account.
  2. Whether the information sought from Plaintiff's personal Gmail account was relevant to the claims and defenses in the action.
  3. Whether the subpoena was facially overbroad because it lacked adequate temporal and subject-matter limitations.
  4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees for challenging the subpoena despite failing to confer with Defendant before filing his earlier motion.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff had standing to move to quash or modify the portion of the subpoena directed to his personal Gmail account because he asserted a personal right or privilege in the account and its contents.
  2. The requested email and other Gmail information was relevant to Defendant's claims that Plaintiff breached his employment agreement and to Defendant's mitigation-of-damages defense.
  3. The subpoena was facially overbroad because it sought a broad category of Gmail information over an extended period without a subject-matter limitation.
  4. Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees because he failed to confer with Defendant before filing his earlier motion to quash and for a protective order.

Key quotations

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case…. (at 3)
Relevance, at the discovery stage, is broadly construed. (at 3)
unless it is clear that the information can have no possible bearing (at 3)
If the request ‘(1) uses an omnibus term such as ‘relating to’ or ‘concerning,’ and (2) applies to a general category or group of documents or a broad range of information,’ the request is facially overbroad. (at 4)

Factual background

RLM Underground subpoenaed Plaintiff's personal Gmail account for all incoming and outgoing emails, draft emails, chat messages, draft calendar invitations, and shared Google Drive documents from January 1, 2024, to the present, without subject-matter limitation. Plaintiff used the account to communicate with counsel regarding the litigation. RLM contended the information was relevant to claims that Plaintiff wiped his company computer before returning it, competed before the expiration of his employment agreement's restriction, and failed to mitigate damages.

Procedural history

After Plaintiff previously filed a motion for protective order and motion to quash without requesting the required pre-motion conference, the court denied that motion without prejudice and directed the parties to confer. At a subsequent discovery conference, Plaintiff renewed the challenge orally. The court found that Plaintiff had standing to challenge the subpoena, addressed the relevance and overbreadth objections, modified the subpoena, and entered deadlines for a revised subpoena.

Remand instructions

No remand. Defendant was directed to remove Plaintiff's personal Gmail account from the existing subpoena, notify Google that a revised subpoena was forthcoming, and file a revised notice of intent to issue subpoena by July 9, 2025. The parties were directed to confer by July 8, 2025, to tailor the request to relevant communications, identify relevant company domains, and exclude communications from the fleeson.com domain.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…