United States District Court, D. Delaware
JANE DOE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
TRINITY LOGISTICS, INC., TRINITY LOGISTICS HOLDINGS LLC, and PINKERTON CONSULTING AND INVESTIGATIONS Defendants.
before the Court are Doe's objections to an order of the
Magistrate Judge which denied-in-part Doe's Motion to
Compel Subpoena Responses. (D.I. 164). Nonparty Securitas
Security Services USA, Inc. responded to Doe's
objections. I have reviewed the briefing, as well as the
transcript of the August 6, 2019 Discovery Dispute
Conference. (D.I. 164, 165, 166, 172).
(hereinafter, "Plaintiff) brings this action on behalf
of herself and of the "Notice Class" of which she
is a member, against Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations.
She alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i)
and (ii), 1681k(a)(1), 1681c(a), 1681b(f), 1681e(a) and
1681e(b). (D.I. 38 at 21-30). Plaintiff alleges Defendants
violated the FCRA by failing to provide her with pre-adverse
action notice before Trinity Logistics, Inc. terminated
Plaintiffs employment, relying on a consumer report generated
and provided by Pinkerton. (Id. at 1-2). Pinkerton
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of nonparty Securitas. (D.I. 12
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve
and file objections to a magistrate judge's order, for
consideration by the district judge, within fourteen days
after being served with a copy of the order. "In
discovery matters, decisions of the magistrate judge are
given great deference and will be reversed only for an abuse
of discretion." Nor guard Ins. Co. v. Serveon
Inc., 2011 WL 344076, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2011).
is seeking discovery of information from nonparty Securitas
in accordance with her subpoena duces tecum. (D.I. 164 at 1;
see D.I. 145, Ex. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff has
the identity or how to identify each employee and job
applicant (not including medical, health, or family leave
information) about whom [Securitas] obtained an employment
purposed consumer report, including but not limited to
documents also known as a background check, background
report, NATCRIM results, and/or National Criminal Database
search results, from Pinkerton since January 1, 2012.
(D.I. 165 at 1). As Pinkerton has completed 774, 954
background checks for Securitas since January 1, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge encouraged the parties to arrange a sampling
of the documents rather than impose upon Securitas the burden
of manually going through all of those documents. (D.I. 152
at 52:14-18). Accordingly, Plaintiff requested a random
sample of files from two Securitas locations, totaling
400-600 files. (D.I. 164 at 1). Plaintiff also requested that
her counsel be able to inspect the documents at the Securitas
premises where they are stored. (Id. at 2).
Securitas offered to deliver 100 files, 50 each from two
Securitas locations, which would be redacted for personal
identifiable information. (D.I. 165 at 2).
Magistrate Judge ordered Securitas to produce a sampling of
100 files with a written explanation describing how the
documents were selected, and denied Plaintiffs request for an
on-site inspection of the documents. The Magistrate Judge
denied Plaintiffs request for an on-site inspection because
Plaintiff cited no authority that would allow a party to do
as much. (D.I. 166 at 37:8-16).
objects to the production of only 100 files and to the denial
of her on-site inspection request. (D.I. 164 at 1). Rule 45
instructs that a "subpoena may command ... inspection of
premises at the premises to be inspected." Plaintiff
argues that the plain language of Rule 45 gives her the
"legal right to inspect the [subpoenaed] documents"
at the Securitas premises, and that the Magistrate Judge
erred in denying this request. (Id. at 4, 7).
Plaintiff also argues that Rule 34(a)(2) authorizes her to
review the subpoenaed documents on site at Securitas's
premises. (D.I. 172 at 3).
overrule Plaintiffs objections. The Magistrate Judge did not
abuse her discretion in limiting production to 100 files. The
Magistrate Judge also did not abuse her discretion in denying
Plaintiffs request for an inspection of the subpoenaed
documents at a Securitas location. Nothing in Rule 45
authorizes an on-site inspection of documents and Plaintiff
does not argue otherwise. Furthermore, while Rule 34 and Rule
45 are coextensive in their reach, Gaskin v. Com. of
Pennsylvania, 1997 WL 734031, at *1 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Nov.
4, 1997), the inspection of documents for their content,
rather than their physical characteristics, is plainly
governed by Rule 34(a)(1) and not by Rule 34(a)(2). Rule
34(a)(2) is irrelevant to the present dispute, and Rule
34(a)(1) does not facially authorize on-site inspection of
documents. Thus, the Magistrate Judge did not abuse her
discretion in denying Plaintiffs request for an on-site
inspection of documents. Plaintiffs objections are therefore
overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's ruling is affirmed.
above reasons, Plaintiffs objections (D.I. 164) are OVERRULED
and the ...