Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rodriguez-Cayro v. Rodriquez-Cayro

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

May 20, 2019

KYLI RODRIGUEZ-CAYRO, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-defendant
v.
NARCISO ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ-CAYRO, Defendant/Counterclaim-plaintiff.

          JILL PARRISH DISTRICT JUDGE

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION RE: NARROWING THE SCOPE OF THE SUBPOENAS

          BROOKE C. WELLS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is referred to the undersigned from Judge Jill Parrish in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A).[1] Before the court is Defendant's motion to prohibit or limit the scope of Plaintiff's subpoenas.[2] The court heard oral argument on the matter May 16, 2019. Having considered the parties' arguments and their briefing, the court grants in part Defendant's motion. Plaintiff Kyli Rodriguez-Cayro brings this suit against her father Narciso Alejnadro Rodriguez-Cayro, asserting claims surrounding alleged sexual abuse that continued for many years.[3] Defendant seeks to modify three subpoenas Plaintiff intends to serve, or in the case with one subpoena, already served. Prior to the court's hearing, Plaintiff served a modified subpoena upon Stevens and Lee, who is Defendant's former employer.[4] Plaintiff notified Defendant's counsel that the subpoena was being served and did so due to discovery deadlines that are fast approaching. The other two subpoenas at issue are one to AOL seeking emails using certain search terms and another to Cumberland County Children and Youth Services (CCYS).

         Under Rule 26(c) Defendant seeks to prohibit or limit the scope of the three subpoenas. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3), which pertains to the quashing or modifying of a subpoena, provides:

(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.[5]

         The court notes that it has a duty to not necessarily quash a subpoena, but if it is overbroad it can reduce the demand to “what is reasonable, considering the discoverer's needs and the discoveree's problems.”[6]

         I. AOL Subpoena

         Defendant, who is an attorney, has used AOL for both business and personal emails for more than 20 years. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's subpoena is overbroad as to “Nick's accounts” and also overbroad as to the proposed search terms. Defendant is also concerned that his email account contains privileged emails between him, other attorneys, prior employers, medical providers and clients. In addition, Defendant asserts the time periods for the requested emails is too broad. Plaintiff seeks emails from different time periods for certain individuals. For example, emails for the past six years are sought between Defendant and his current wife. And, nine years of emails is sought between Defendant and his ex-wife while they were married. Defendant argues many of these emails are personal and Plaintiff is seeking them to harass or embarrass Defendant.

         In response, Plaintiff acknowledges that it will exclude any spousal communications between Defendant and his current wife or ex-wife. What Plaintiff seeks are emails that dispute Defendant's theory about bestiality and support her allegations of Defendants interest in sexual encounters between dogs, dogs and people. including ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.