Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantsubpoenadiscoverymotionseizure
plaintiffdefendantsubpoenamotionseizure

Related Cases

Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, 75 A.L.R.2d 1
View Case »
Southern Ry. Co. v. Gossett, 79 S.C. 372, 60 S.E. 956
View Case »
Thurel v. Varghese, 207 A.D.2d 220, 621 N.Y.S.2d 633, 46 A.L.R.5th 901
View Case »
Brueckner v. Norwich University, 169 Vt. 118, 730 A.2d 1086, 135 Ed. Law Rep. 198
View Case »
Guillory v. Saucier, 79 So.3d 1188, 2011-745 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/11)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Eichenwald v. Rivello, 321 F.Supp.3d 562

Facts

Plaintiff Kurt Eichenwald, a journalist known for his criticism of Donald Trump, has epilepsy and publicly disclosed his condition. On December 15, 2016, Defendant John Rivello sent Eichenwald a strobing GIF via Twitter, which was intended to provoke a seizure and did indeed cause one. Eichenwald subsequently filed a lawsuit against Rivello, asserting claims of battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case was stayed while a related criminal matter against Rivello progressed in Texas, but the stay was partially lifted to allow for third-party discovery.

Defendant's alleged actions also resulted in a criminal prosecution against him in Texas (Plaintiff is a Texas resident, and allegedly viewed the strobe GIF and suffered the seizure in Texas).

Issue

Did the defendant have standing to challenge the third-party subpoenas issued by the plaintiff?

A party generally lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third-party absent a claim of privilege, proprietary interest, or personal interest in the subpoenaed matter.

Rule

A party generally lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third-party absent a claim of privilege, proprietary interest, or personal interest in the subpoenaed matter.

A party generally lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third-party absent a claim of privilege, proprietary interest, or personal interest in the subpoenaed matter.

Analysis

The court determined that Rivello did not have standing to challenge the third-party subpoenas because he failed to demonstrate any personal right or privilege in the information sought. The court emphasized that a motion to quash or for a protective order should be made by the person from whom the documents are requested, and since Rivello did not claim any personal interest, his motion was denied. Even if he had standing, the court noted that he did not provide sufficient reasons to justify a protective order.

Defendant makes no argument that he has a personal right or privilege in any of the information sought, and therefore he lacks standing to challenge these subpoenas.

Conclusion

The court denied Rivello's motion for a protective order and to quash the subpoenas, concluding that he lacked standing to challenge them.

For the reasons stated above, Defendant's motion for a protective order and/or to quash is DENIED.

Who won?

Kurt Eichenwald prevailed in the case because the court found that John Rivello did not have standing to challenge the subpoenas issued to third parties.

The Court has found no cases, and the parties have provided none, that depart from this general rule—that a party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third-party except when the party has some interest (personal, proprietary, privilege, or so forth) in the information sought.

You must be