You are on page 1of 3

Case 1:13-mc-00244-YK Document 1 Filed 05/07/13 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER SITE LITIGATION

MISCELLANEOUS ACTION NO. IN RE: CIVIL ACTION NOS. 21 MC 102, 21 MC 103 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENAS ESIS, Inc. (successor by merger to Hygienetics Environmental Services, Inc., hereinafter ESIS or Movant), by and through its counsel, Marks, ONeill, OBrien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., hereby moves this Honorable Court to Quash, or in the alternative, modify the subpoenas served upon it by Verizon New York, Inc., and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. On or about April 17, 2013, ESIS was served with a Subpoena to Produce

Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (hereinafter the Document Subpoena), and a Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Matter (hereinafter the Deposition Subpoena) (collectively the Subpoenas), by Verizon New York, Inc. (hereinafter Verizon). See true and correct copies of the Subpoenas, attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively. 2. The Subpoenas were issued by the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Pennsylvania. 3. The Subpoenas purportedly seek information relating to ongoing litigation in the

Southern District of New York, captioned In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan (Combined) Disaster Site Litigation, and docketed at Civil Action Numbers 21 MC 102 and 21

Case 1:13-mc-00244-YK Document 1 Filed 05/07/13 Page 2 of 3

MC 103 (hereinafter the Litigation), in which Verizon is a defendant. See Exhibits A and B. 4. In the Litigation, numerous plaintiffs allege, inter alia, respiratory and non-

respiratory injuries relating to the recovery, restoration, and/or clean-up operations at locations near the World Trade Center site following the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. 5. Movant is not a party to the Litigation; however, during discussions, Verizon

would not foreclose the possibility that Verizon and/or other parties to the Litigation may still seek to join Movant as a party in the future. 6. In the Document Subpoena, Verizon seeks to obtain documents that are not

relevant to the claims being put forward by the plaintiffs or Verizons defenses to those claims. 7. Furthermore, in the Document Subpoena, Verizon seeks overly broad categories

of documents, which would be overly burdensome for Moving Defendant to produce, particularly within the time frame provided by the Document Subpoena. 8. Similarly, in the Deposition Subpoena, Verizon seeks a deponent to testify

regarding areas of inquiry that are not relevant to the claims being put forward by the plaintiffs or Verizons defenses to those claims. 9. Additionally, certain areas of inquiry identified in Schedule A to the Deposition

Subpoena are so broad as to make it extremely impracticable, if not impossible, to produce one or more deponents who could competently testify to the entirety of the scope of inquiry demanded.

{PH649892.1}

Case 1:13-mc-00244-YK Document 1 Filed 05/07/13 Page 3 of 3

10.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, as more fully articulated in the supporting

Brief attached hereto, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3), the Subpoenas should be quashed. 4. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, concurrence of Verizons counsel

was sought, but not obtained. WHEREFORE, ESIS hereby moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3), to Quash both the Subpoenas served upon ESIS by Verizon in this matter.

Respectfully submitted, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. /s/ Patrick Lamb Patrick C. Lamb, Esquire Identification No. 70817 1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 plamb@moodklaw.com Attorneys for ESIS, Inc. (successor by merger to Hygienetics Environmental Services, Inc.) Date: May 7, 2013

{PH649892.1}