Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 374 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Brett Kimberlin,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Patrick Frey,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 8:13-cv-03059-GJH
)
)
)
)
)

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DIRECTED TO NON-PARTY

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 45, Hunton & Williams LLP (H&W)
moves to quash plaintiffs subpoena purportedly issued to H&W. The grounds for this Motion
are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support.

Dated: April 28, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ C.J. Mahoney
C.J. Mahoney (Bar No. 18713)
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 434-5253
Facsimile: (202) 434-5058
Email: cmahoney@wc.com
Attorney for Hunton & Williams LLP

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 374-1 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 8:13-cv-3059-GJH
)
)
)
)
)

Brett Kimberlin,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Patrick Frey,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLPS

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
Concurrent with the filing of this motion, Hunton & Williams LLP (H&W) has filed an
opposition to Mr. Kimberlins pending motion to compel compliance with the subpoena he sent
to H&Ws counsel on March 18, 2016 (and which counsel agreed to accept, preserving all
objections, as of March 21).1 D.I. 373. The Court should quash the subpoena for the same
reasons set forth in the Opposition:
First, the subpoena is overbroad and fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule 26(b),
which requires that information requested by subpoena be not only relevant but also proportional
to the expense and burden of complying with the subpoena. H&W is not a party to this
litigation. Mr. Kimberlin alleges no connection between H&W and the remaining defendant,
Patrick Frey. Nor does he allege that H&W had anything to do with the alleged activities of Mr.
Freys employer, the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office, which give rise to the sole
remaining claim in this litigation. The Court therefore should see the subpoena for what it isa
1

As indicated in H&Ws Opposition to the Motion to Compel, counsel agreed to accept service
as of March 21, 2016, but, in doing so, counsel explicitly reserved all objections both to the
manner of service and to the subpoena itself. H&W then sent Mr. Kimberlin timely objections.
1

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 374-1 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 3

transparent effort by Mr. Kimberlin to obtain the discovery he sought unsuccessfully in his now
dismissed lawsuit against H&W (perhaps in the hopes of reviving that suit). See Kimberlin v.
Hunton & Williams, et al., No. 8:15-cv-00723, Dkt. No. 133 (dismissing all claims).
Second, service was improper because Mr. Kimberlina party to this actionattempted
to effect service himself. See Dkt. No. 344 (denying Mr. Kimberlins subpoena to Defendant
Aaron Walker because Mr. Kimberlin served it himself and it therefore does not comply with
Rule 45(b)(1)).
Third, there is no indication on the Courts docket that Mr. Kimberlin obtained
permission from the Court to serve the subpoena. See Dkt. No. 313 (ordering Mr. Kimberlin to
obtain authorization from the Court prior to serving discovery requests).
For these reasons and those stated in H&Ws Opposition to the Motion to Compel, D.I.
373, the Court should grant H&Ws Motion to Quash.

Dated: April 28, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ C.J. Mahoney
C.J. Mahoney (Bar No. 18713)
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 434-5253
Facsimile: (202) 434-5058
Email: cmahoney@wc.com
Attorney for Hunton & Williams LLP

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 374-1 Filed 04/28/16 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 28th day of April, 2016, a copy of the foregoing
Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and supporting materials was filed electronically with
the Courts electronic filing system, which provided electronic notice to all counsel of record in
this matter. In addition, a copy of the foregoing motion and supporting materials was sent by
Federal Express to Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin at 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, MD 20817.

_/s/ C.J. Mahoney___________

C.J. Mahoney (Bar No. 18713)

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 374-2 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 8:13-cv-03059-GJH
)
)
)
)
)

Brett Kimberlin,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Patrick Frey,
Defendant.

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of the Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to NonParty Hunton & Williams LLP, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Quash plaintiffs subpoena to H&W is GRANTED; and
ORDERED that plaintiffs subpoena directed to non-party H&W is QUASHED.

ENTERED this ____ day of _______ 2016.

________________________________
George J. Hazel
United States District Judge