In Goodnight v. Hammons, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the defendant’s motion to quash seven non-party subpoenas and request for a protective order in a case involving allegations that the defendant disseminated and threatened to use nude photographs of the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the subpoenas in the litigation were overly broad, irrelevant, and imposed an undue burden, and further claimed a personal privacy interest in the requested communications. The court emphasized that a party with standing may challenge a subpoena only on privacy or privilege grounds, not on the basis of burden to the subpoenaed non‑party. As the court explained, “even if a party has standing to challenge a subpoena directed to a third party on privacy or privilege grounds, he may not challenge that subpoena on the grounds that the information imposes an undue burden on the subpoenaed party.”

The defendant also argued that the subpoenas were overly broad because they sought all communications “regarding” the parties. The court rejected this argument, noting that discovery relevance under Rule 26(b)(1) is broad and includes any information that may bear on claims or defenses, including motive, context, and state of mind. Limiting the subpoenas only to communications containing nude images, as the defendant proposed, would improperly exclude potentially relevant evidence.

The court found the subpoenas sufficiently tailored by subject matter and time frame, concluding that “the information sought by the subpoenas falls within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1).” As a result, the court refused to restrict the subpoenas and reaffirmed that discovery may extend beyond communications directly depicting the alleged misconduct when broader contextual evidence may bear on a party’s claims or defenses. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to quash and the related request for a protective order, holding that the subpoenas were neither overbroad nor outside the permissible scope of discovery.

Reach out to Caitlin Oyler, Counsel at CODISCOVR. Caitlin has over a decade of experience providing high-level advice to clients regarding all phases of the eDiscovery life cycle and managing high-profile document collections, reviews, and productions.