Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

ESIS, INC. v. VERIZON NEW YORK INC. MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENAS

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Embedded Scribd iPaper - Requires Javascript and Flash Player
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, O’Neill, O’Brien, 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 Verizon’s 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 Verizon’s 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}
2
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 Verizon’s 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}
3

Published under a Creative Commons License By attribution, non-commercial
AttachmentSize
D.E.1 MISCELLANEOUS CASE FILED - MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA.pdf90.17 KB

Like us on facebook!