United States District Court, D. Delaware
M. DENISE TOLLIVER, Plaintiff,
TRINITY PARISH FOUNDATION, et al., Defendants.
HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK, JUDGE
August 2, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment and then entered judgment in favor of
Defendants and against Plaintiff. (See D.I. 180,
181, 182) Plaintiff moves for reconsideration. (D.I. 183)
Defendants oppose. Defendants also move to quash a subpoena
directed to America Online ("AOL"). (D.I. 187)
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann,
Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A
motion for reconsideration is the "functional
equivalent" of a motion to alter or amend judgment under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). See Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'/
Corp., 899 F.2d 1350, 1352 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing
Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345,
348 (3d Cir. 1986)). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion . . .
must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change
in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or
(3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice." Lazandis v.
Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing
North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52
F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
contends that reconsideration is appropriate because the
Court allowed her to proceed on several counts of her second
amended complaint, but later granted Defendants' motion
for summary judgment. She seems to argue that the rulings are
inconsistent. Plaintiff also appears to seek reconsideration
on the grounds that Defendants' motion for summary
judgment did not contain evidence that would be admissible at
trial. While not clear, it may be that Plaintiff contends
there remain issues of fact. Finally, Plaintiff states that
she has been prejudiced by the protracted litigation and that
the Court failed to consider her landlord/tenant claim.
Court has again reviewed the record and the positions set
forth by the parties in the motion for summary judgment and
Plaintiffs opposition thereto. In doing so, the Court finds
that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate grounds to warrant
reconsideration of the Court's August 2, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order that granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiffs
motion for reconsideration.
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
August 4, 2017, Plaintiff, a non-attorney, issued a subpoena
and served it by email upon AOL to obtain email messages from
various email accounts. Defendants move to quash the subpoena
on the grounds that it was improperly issued, improperly
served, and seeks information that is privileged or
protected. (D.I. 187)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the
circumstances under which a court may quash a subpoena. A
subpoena may be quashed if it fails to allow a reasonable
time to comply, requires disclosure of a privileged or
otherwise protected matter if no exception or waiver applies,
or subjects a person to an undue burden. Fed.R.Civ.P.
45(d)(3)(A). The party seeking to quash a subpoena bears the
burden of demonstrating that the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.
45 are satisfied. See Robocast, Inc., v. Microsoft
Corp., 2013 WL 1498666, at *1 (D. Del. Apr. 12, 2013).
Defendants have met their burden to quash the subpoena under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A), by establishing that the
information sought by Plaintiff is protected. The emails
sought by Plaintiff belong to attorneys who advised
Defendants regarding Plaintiffs termination, the subject of
this lawsuit. Attorney-client information is protected by the
attorney-client privilege and is not the type of discovery to
which Plaintiff is entided. In addition, when Plaintiff
sought the discover}7, the discovery and dispositive
deadlines had passed.
the Clerk of Court did not issue the subpoena and Plaintiff,
who is not an attorney, is not authorized to issue a subpoena
but, nonetheless, she did. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(a)(3). Also, the subpoena was not properly served because
Plaintiff is a party and, as such, she is not authorized to
serve a subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. ...