Skip to content

Massachusetts Legal Resources

Massachusetts Legal Resources & News

Menu
  • Massachusetts Legal News
  • Sample Page
Menu

Boston Restoration Resources, Inc. v. Pitts, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-026-18)

Posted on March 16, 2018

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

 

SUFFOLK, ss                                                                                                                                    SUPERIOR COURT

  1. 17-1142-C

 

 

 

 

                                    BOSTON RESTORATION RESOURCES, INC.

 

                                                                             v.

 

                                LORENZO PITTS, INCORPORATED, WILLETTA

                                 PITTS-GIVENS, REBECCA MAUTNER, LESLIE

                                   BOS, and JAMAICA PLAIN NEIGHBORHOOD

                                              DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

 

 

 

                                MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON

                                PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION

                                      SUBPOENA TO KEEPER OF RECORDS OF

                                       UNITED HOUSING MANAGEMENT, LLC

 

 

Plaintiff Boston Restoration Resources, Inc. (“BRI”) has brought a Rule 45(d) motion to quash a document subpoena served on non-party United Housing Management, LLC.  The thrust of BRI’s motion is that the subpoena is unreasonably over-broad and burdensome, and seeks documents relevant only to a previously asserted theory of damages it has since abandoned.  United Housing Management has to date defied the subpoena served upon it, but has not joined this motion.

 

Mass. R. Civ. P. 45(f)(3) provides that “[a]ny person subject to a subpoena under this rule may move the court (A) for a protective order under rule 26(c) or (B) to be deemed entitled to any protection set forth in any discovery or procedural order previously entered in the case.”  Inasmuch as BRI is not “the person subject to subpoena” under Rule 45, and does not maintain that production of the documents sought thereby would invade any legal right or privilege it has in the same, it lacks standing to assert objections on behalf of United Housing Management.  See In re Stone & Webster Securities Litigation, 2006 WL 2818489, at *2-3 (D. Mass. 2006) (a party has no standing to object to a subpoena directed to a non-party); Langford v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.2d 1121, 1126 (2d Cir. 1975) (“In the absence of a claim of privilege a party usually does not have standing to object to a subpoena addressed to a non-party witness.”).  See generally P. Lauriat et al., Discovery, 49A Mass. Practice _ 8:23, at 289 and n.21 (3d ed. 2017) (“In general a party has no standing to assert objections to a subpoena on behalf of a non-party.”).

It is true, as BRI points out, that “[a] party has standing to quash a subpoena served on a non-party if he or she has a personal right or privilege with respect to the requested information.”  Enargy Power (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. v. Xiaolong Wang, 2014 WL 2048416, at *2 n.4 (D. Mass. May 6, 2014).  See also P. Lauriat, supra, 49A Mass. Practice _ 8:23, at 289 (“A party may assert objections as to a subpoena served on a non-party … where the objections relate to rights of that party rather than the non-party.”).  This is not the case in BRI’s present motion.  BRI does not contend that the subpoena served upon United Housing Management invades any cognizable privacy right or legal privilege it has in the requested documents, but instead insists that the subpoena burdensomely seeks the production of records having only marginal relevance to the claims in litigation.  BRI lacks standing to assert such objections.  See Collins v. Does 1-38, 941 F. Supp. 2d 153, 159-60 (D. Mass. 2013) (“As a general rule, a party lacks standing to quash a subpoena issued to a nonparty unless the party has a claim of privilege attached to the information sought or unless it implicates a party’s privacy interests.”)(quotations omitted).

 

Accordingly, plaintiff BRI’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena shall be, and hereby

 

is, DENIED.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

_______________________

                                       Robert B. Gordon

Justice of the Superior Court

 

 

 

Dated: March 16, 2018

 

 

 

 

                                                                             

Full-text Opinions

Recent Posts

  • COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL NOGUERA
  • COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL NOGUERA – Summary
  • COMMONWEALTH vs. BYRON PALMER.
  • Commonwealth v. Palmer (AC 24-P-365) COMMONWEALTH vs. BYRON PALMER – SUMMARY
  • Hello world!

Recent Comments

  1. Avoid Probate on FBI: Three Classmates Destroyed Bombing Evidence to Help Friend
  2. Avoid Probate on Do You Want a Digital Billboard in Your Neighborhood?
  3. Avoid Probate on Commonwealth v. Yardley Y., a juvenile (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-013-13)
  4. Avoid Probate on Pet of the Week: Bette Midler the Green-Eyed Cat
  5. Medical Powers of Attorney on Pet of the Week: Bette Midler the Green-Eyed Cat
©2025 Massachusetts Legal Resources | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme

Powered by
...
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
►
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by