Joseph Raymond Steib, Sr. v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants Huntington Ingalls Incorporated’s motion to quash a trial subpoena issued to former employee Danny Joyce. The court concludes that the subpoena would impose an undue burden because the proposed testimony largely concerns matters outside Joyce’s personal knowledge and overlaps with prior deposition testimony. The court declines to rule in advance on the admissibility of the prior testimony, stating that objections must be addressed under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Holdings

1. A party has standing to move to quash a subpoena directed to a nonparty when the party possesses a personal right or privilege in the subject matter of the subpoena. Huntington Ingalls had standing because the subpoena sought information concerning an investigation conducted at its expense and direction.
2. A trial subpoena should be quashed when requiring a retired former corporate representative who is not a designated expert, has not been deposed in the case, and has not otherwise participated in the matter to appear and testify would impose a burden disproportionate to the requesting party's need, particularly where the proposed testimony is cumulative and its relevance is inadequate.
3. A subpoena cannot convert testimony previously given by a witness in a corporate-representative or expert capacity into admissible live fact testimony merely by subpoenaing the witness in a personal capacity. Testimony concerning matters learned from others or through prior investigations and litigation is not proper personal-knowledge fact testimony under Rule 602.
4. Granting the motion to quash did not resolve the admissibility of Joyce's prior designated deposition testimony; that admissibility must be determined under the Federal Rules of Evidence on an objection-by-objection basis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Huntington Ingalls had standing to move to quash a subpoena directed to a nonparty witness.
2. Whether the subpoena subjected Danny Joyce to an undue burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A).
3. Whether Joyce's proposed testimony concerning historical practices and information learned during prior investigations and litigation was proper personal-knowledge fact testimony.
4. Whether the court should overrule Huntington Ingalls' objections to plaintiff's designated deposition testimony.

Disposition

other