METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAVIN HILL FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, INC., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. 15-12939-LTS United States District Court, D. Massachusetts Filed November 16, 2018 Counsel Glenda H. Ganem, McGovern & Ganem, P.C., Boston, MA, Lucy C. Wolf, Proskauer Rose, Boston, MA, Nicholas J. Pompeo, McGovern Houston & Ganem, PC, Boston, MA, Peter R. Houston, McGovern, Snyder & Ganem PC, Boston, MA, William D. Dalsen, Proskauer Rose LLP, Boston, MA, Hadassa R. Waxman, Pro Hac Vice, Joseph C. O'Keefe, Pro Hac Vice, Joseph Baumgarten, Pro Hac Vice, Lloyd B. Chinn, Pro Hac Vice, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Nicholas J. Pompeo, McGovern Houston & Ganem, PC, Boston, MA, Peter R. Houston, McGovern, Snyder & Ganem PC, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff The Commerce Insurance Company. Christopher M. Cervantes, Cervantes Law, Boston, MA, for Defendants Savin Hill Family Chiropractic, Inc., Logan Chiropractic, Inc. Karen A. Pickett, Pickett Law Offices, P.C., Boston, MA, for Defendant Brandy Soto. Kristen S. Scammon, Torres, Scammon, Hincks & Day, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Heger Asenjo. Kenneth I. Gordon, Boston, MA, for Defendants William Hernandez, Arismendy Ramos, Maximo Soto, April Stewart, Tanisha Ramos, Karla Mendoza. Jeremy T. Robin, Law Office of Jeremy T. Robin, Boston, MA, for Defendants Richard McGovern, Marsella Imonti, Allison Robin, Charles Ronchetti, Tara O'Desky. Metro Coach, Inc., Revere, MA, Pro Se. Kenneth Ramos, Lynn, MA, Pro Se. Tony Ramos, Revere, MA, Pro Se. Boal, Jennifer C., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER ON NON-PARTY CHRISTOPHER M. CERVANTES’ MOTION TO QUASH [Docket No. 811] *1 Non-party Attorney Christopher M. Cervantes has filed a motion to quash a subpoena served upon him. Docket No. 811. He argues that the subpoena seeks privileged or irrelevant information and subjects him to an undue burden.[1] Attorney Cervantes has represented Savin Hill Family Chiropractic, Inc. (“Savin Hill”) and Logan Chiropractic, Inc. (“Logan”) in unrelated matters in state court. Docket No. 811 at 5. The subpoena seeks the following documents:[2] 1. Copies of any and all correspondence, communications, emails, facsimile, text messages, and ESI between Cervantes Law and B. Soto, Jeffrey S. Glassman, and/or the Glassman Law Office regarding matters where B. Soto, Jeffrey S. Glassman, and/or the Glassman Law Office were not the client of Cervantes Law but paid for legal services rendered to a third-party, individual and/or business entity, from January 1, 2016 to the present. 2. Copies of any and all contracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding, and/or documents reflecting an agreement, arrangement, understanding and/or relationship between Cervantes Law and B. Soto, Jeffrey S. Glassman and/or the Glassman Law Office to pay for legal services rendered to a third-party, individual and/or business entity, from January 1, 2016 to the present. 3. Copies of any and all checks, invoices, receipts, electronic fund transfers, money orders, cashier's checks, cancelled checks, and/or credit card payments reflecting payments made by B. Soto, Jeffrey S. Glassman and/or the Glassman Law Office for legal services rendered by Cervantes Law to a third-party, individual and/or business entity, from January 1, 2016 to the present. Docket No. 825-1 at 13-14. *2 Plaintiffs argue that the documents they seek are relevant to establishing that Brandy Soto was the owner of Savin Hill and Logan, which he denies.[3] Docket No. 825 at 11. They have evidence that he may have been involved in the selection of counsel and paid legal fees on behalf of Savin Hill and Logan. Id. In addition, they argue that evidence demonstrating a relationship between the Law Firm Defendants and Savin Hill or Logan through the payment of attorney's fees is relevant to establishing the existence of the RICO enterprise, as well as the Law Firm Defendants’ knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the invoices the firm submitted for payment on behalf of its clients, and/or a continuation of the RICO enterprise. Id. The Plaintiffs further argue that evidence demonstrating that Soto paid legal invoices for individuals treated at Savin Hill and Logan also demonstrates a relationship between Soto and the clinics, as the clinics would have been the ultimate beneficiary of that relationship. Id. at 11-12. The Court finds that while Request No. 1 is overly broad, the subpoena seeks relevant information. The Court limits Request No. 1 to correspondence, emails and other communications concerning the payment of attorney's fees between Cervantes Law and Soto or the Law Firm Defendants where Soto and the Law Firm Defendants were not clients of Cervantes Law but paid for legal services rendered to a third party concerning the payment of attorney's fees. Requests Nos. 2 and 3 are appropriate as drafted. To the extent that Cervantes argues that these requests seek privileged information, the Court disagrees. “[T]he identity of an attorney's client and the source of payment for legal fees are not normally protected by the attorney-client privilege.” United States v. Gertner, 873 F. Supp. 729, 735 (D. Mass. 1995) (citations omitted); Lucas v. Gold Std. Baking, Inc., No. 13 CV 1524, 2017 WL 3394726, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2017) (citations omitted); United States v. Saccoccia, 898 F. Supp. 53, 58 (D.R.I. 1995) (citations omitted). Attorney bills and related documents are also generally not privileged unless they reveal the nature of the services provided or the substance of client communications. See Gonzalez Crespo v. Wella Corp., 774 F. Supp. 688, 689 (D.P.R. 1991). In addition, in order for the attorney-client privilege to apply, the proponent must show of course that he or she was or sought to be a client of the attorney. State of Maine v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 298 F.3d 60, 71 (1st Cir. 2002). Cervantes has not stated that Soto or the Law Firm Defendants were his clients and, in any event, the requests seek documents for matters where Soto and the Law Firm Defendants were not the client but paid for legal services rendered to someone else. To the extent that Cervantes maintains that there are responsive documents that do not fall within these categories of non-privileged information, he shall provide a privilege log to the Plaintiffs in the first instance. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to quash. Cervantes shall produce responsive documents and, if appropriate, a privilege log within 21 days of the date of this order. So Ordered. Footnotes [1] Cervantes’ undue burden argument is easily disposed of because he has not provided any specifics regarding the alleged undue burden. As the party resisting discovery, Cervantes bears the burden of showing that the subpoena imposes an undue burden, and he “cannot rely on a mere assertion that compliance would be burdensome and onerous without showing the manner and extent of the burden and the injurious consequences of insisting upon compliance.” Green v. Cosby, 152 F. Supp. 3d 31, 36-37 (D. Mass. 2015) (citations omitted). [2] The Plaintiffs also served a notice of deposition but the notice stated that if documents were produced prior to the deposition, the deponent's attendance may be waived. Docket No. 825-1 at 5. The Plaintiffs do not appear to be pressing for a deposition. Docket No. 825 at 3. To the extent that the Plaintiffs wish to take Attorney Cervantes’ deposition, they have not shown that they are entitled to do so under the circumstances. See Bingham v. Supervalu, Inc., No. 13-11690-FDS, 2014 WL 12792917, at *6-7 (D. Mass. May 28, 2014) (citing Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986) (Noting that depositions of counsel are disfavored and should be limited to “where the party seeking to take the deposition has shown that (1) no other means exist to obtain the information [other] than to depose opposing counsel, (2) the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged; and (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case.”). [3] The Plaintiffs allege that Soto is also a paralegal employed by the Law Firm Defendants. Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶¶ 19, 43. According to Plaintiffs, Soto was a referral source by and between the Law Firm Defendants and Savin Hill and Logan. Id. at ¶ 46. The Law Firm Defendants employ Soto under the fictitious title of paralegal to disguise the fact that they compensate Soto for illegal and improper referrals between the Law Firm Defendants, Savin Hill and Logan. Id. at ¶ 48.