Eichenwald v. Rivello
321 F. Supp. 3d 562 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third-party unless the moving party asserts a personal right, privilege, or proprietary interest in the information sought by the subpoena.
Facts:
- Kurt Eichenwald is a journalist who is publicly known to have epilepsy.
- During the 2016 election, Eichenwald was a vocal critic of then-candidate Donald Trump.
- On December 15, 2016, John Rivello sent Eichenwald a strobing Graphic Interchange Format (GIF) image via the social media platform Twitter.
- The strobing GIF was allegedly intended to cause Eichenwald to have an epileptic seizure.
- Upon viewing the GIF, Eichenwald suffered a seizure.
Procedural Posture:
- Kurt Eichenwald filed a civil lawsuit against John Rivello in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The court stayed the civil proceedings pending the resolution of a related criminal case against Rivello.
- The court later partially lifted the stay, allowing Eichenwald to begin third-party discovery.
- Eichenwald served subpoenas on seven third parties, including Twitter, Inc., Google LLC, and PayPal Holdings, Inc.
- Rivello filed a motion for a protective order and/or to quash the subpoenas served on the third parties.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party have standing to quash subpoenas issued to third parties when that party does not claim any personal right, privilege, or proprietary interest in the information sought?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge James K. Bredar
No. A party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third-party absent a claim of privilege, proprietary interest, or personal interest in the subpoenaed matter. The defendant, Rivello, did not assert any such personal right or privilege over the information sought from third parties like PayPal, Google, and Twitter. Instead, he argued on behalf of others, such as donors to a legal defense fund or his father. Because Rivello failed to demonstrate any personal stake in the information, he has no standing to quash the subpoenas. Even when considered as a motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the motion fails because Rivello did not show how he would personally suffer annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden from the disclosure.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the stringent standing requirements for a party seeking to quash a third-party subpoena in federal court. It clarifies that a party cannot object to discovery simply because it is directed at an associate or because it might reveal embarrassing information about others. The ruling promotes efficiency in the discovery process by preventing litigants from using motions to quash to obstruct the flow of information in which they have no direct, legally recognized interest. Future litigants seeking to block third-party discovery must be prepared to articulate a specific, personal right to the information, rather than making generalized arguments on behalf of the non-party or others.
