Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Composition Roofers Union Local 30 Welfare Trust Fund v. Graveley Roofing Enterprises Inc.
Citations: 160 F.R.D. 70; 32 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 213; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2708; 1995 WL 100546Docket: No. 93-CV-2759
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania; March 6, 1995; Federal District Court
A Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Jackel Services Corporation and Kathryn A. Graveley has been denied by the court. The plaintiffs, consisting of labor unions and employee benefit plans, initiated the lawsuit against Graveley Roofing for failing to remit benefit contributions as required under ERISA. A previous court order mandated Graveley Roofing to provide payroll records to determine delinquent contributions. During a deposition, it was revealed that Graveley Roofing subcontracted work to Jackel Services, which violates collective bargaining agreements. Despite attempts to obtain relevant information from Graveley Roofing, the required documents were not produced, prompting the plaintiffs to serve a subpoena to Kathryn A. Graveley on December 5, 1994, for a deposition and to provide business records related to the subcontract. The movants filed their Motion to Quash on January 11, 1995, citing four arguments: undue burden, disclosure of confidential communications and irrelevant records, insufficient time for compliance, and the subpoena's overly broad scope. The court found all arguments unpersuasive. Particularly regarding the undue burden claim, it noted that a lack of personal knowledge does not exempt a witness from providing information useful for discovery. The motion was ultimately denied, allowing the subpoena to stand. Ms. Graveley’s lack of personal knowledge is irrelevant, as her position as Jackel’s secretary grants her access to relevant records regarding agreements with Graveley Roofing. Plaintiffs have unsuccessfully sought this information from the Defendant, undermining the movants' claim that the information could be more easily obtained from them. The movants failed to prove that the subpoena is oppressive. They argue that the subpoena should be quashed due to the potential disclosure of confidential commercial information, specifically regarding contract rates used by Jackel for bids. Under Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(i), courts may quash subpoenas to prevent unnecessary disclosures of confidential information, balancing privacy interests against the need for full disclosure. The movants must demonstrate that the information is confidential and that its disclosure would cause specific, serious harm. They have not sufficiently established that disclosure would lead to specific injury, and their assertion that the information is more accessible from the Defendant raises doubts about its confidentiality. The requested information is relevant for documenting agreements between Graveley Roofing and Jackel, which is necessary for calculating damages owed to Plaintiffs. Regarding the subpoena’s scope, the movants claim it lacks a specified time frame and does not allow sufficient time for compliance. However, Ms. Graveley had 37 days to produce documents after being served on December 5, 1994, and the relevant time frame is manageable, covering a 20-month period from May 1992 to December 1993. Ultimately, the movants have not demonstrated that the subpoena imposes an undue burden, leading to the denial of their Motion to Quash. Key personnel involved include Kathryn Graveley, secretary of Jackel and former employee of Graveley Roofing, along with other officers related by blood or marriage.