Formon THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND COLLEGE, Defendants MO:22-CV-246-DC-RCG United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Midland-Odessa Division Signed October 13, 2023 Counsel Donald Christopher Tyler, Coane and Associates, PLLC, Hallandale Beach, FL, Zane Noureddine, Coane and Associates PLLC, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff. Jennifer A. Powell, Tyler P. Ezell, Eichelbaum Wardell Hansen Powell & Munoz, P.C., Austin, TX, for Defendants. Griffin, Ronald C., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM *1 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff Formon Thompson's (“Plaintiff” or “Thompson”) Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum.[1] (Doc. 18). This motion is before the undersigned through a Standing Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Appendix C of the Local Court Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. After due consideration of the applicable case law and the parties’ briefing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum. (Doc. 18). I. BACKGROUND On November 28, 2022, Thompson filed this suit against Defendant Midland College (“Defendant” or “Midland College”) bringing race discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1981. (Doc. 1). On August 14, 2023, Midland College provided Thompson notice that it intended to depose by written questions and serve subpoenas duces tecum on non-parties Leake County School District, Little Priest Tribal College, Dine College, and Shorter College (collectively, “the non-party deponents”) 14 days after service of notice. (Docs. 18, 20). At this point the stories diverge. Thompson claims that on August 22, 2023, he requested that Midland College not serve the subpoenas on the non-party deponents until the Court ruled on Thompson's Motion to Quash. (Doc. 18). He then attempted to confer “throughout the month of September” to prevent Midland College from sending the subpoenas. Id. On the other hand, Midland College claims that Thompson requested on August 24, 2023, that Midland College delay its service of notice, questions and subpoena on the non-party deponents if and until Thompson could locate the documents and responses himself. (Doc. 20). Having failed to locate the documents, Thompson so advised Midland College on September 18, 2023, whereupon Midland College informed Thompson it would then pursue the subpoenas. Id. On September 27, 2023, Midland College served its subpoenas duces tecum on the non-party deponents. Id. Then, on October 4, 2023, Thompson filed the instant Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum. (Doc. 18). Midland College timely filed its Response on October 11, 2023. (Doc. 20). Accordingly, this matter is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. II. LEGAL STANDARD A movant may request that the Court quash a subpoena. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(3). In addition to the enumerated grounds for quashing a subpoena, “it is generally accepted that the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 45 is limited by the relevancy requirement of the federal discovery rules.” Jordan v. Comm'r, Mississippi Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2020). The relevancy requirement of the federal discovery rules provides: Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). III. DISCUSSION *2 Thompson's sole argument in support of quashing Midland College's subpoenas to the non-party deponents is that the subpoenas are not relevant under the federal discovery rules. (Doc. 18). Thompson argues that Midland College's subpoenas duces tecum related to his previous employment with the non-party deponents are irrelevant to his claims of racial discrimination against Midland College. Id. Thompson twice cites the Federal Rules of Evidence in support of his argument, but that citation is inappropriate in this context. As the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clarify, “information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Instead, the proper standard is that Midland College may discover “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Id. Indeed, during discovery relevancy is “broadly construed, and information is considered relevant if it encompasses any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” United States v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-022-Z, 2022 WL 19006564, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2022) (cleaned up). Midland College seeks the personnel files held by Thompson's former employers. (Doc. 20). Given that Thompson has directly placed his job qualifications at issue in this case (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 56, 68) and Midland College denied Thompson's allegation that he was qualified for his position at Midland College (Doc. 6, ¶¶ 56, 68), the Court finds that—on this basis alone—Midland College has met its minimal relevancy burden for the subpoenas. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1) (“relevant to any party's claim or defense”). Moreover, information that bears on Thompson's job performance with previous employers would tend to prove or disprove either Thompson's claims or Midland College's defenses. For example, a series of reprimands at previous employers would tend to affirm Midland College's position, while stellar performance at previous employers would tend to affirm Thompson's position. See Cunningham v. Concentrix Sols. Corp., No. 4:20-CV-661, 2021 WL 963404, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021) (finding, while deciding a motion to quash, that subpoenaed information about previous employers was relevant to an employment discrimination claim). IV. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum is DENIED. (Doc. 18). It is so ORDERED. Footnotes [1] The Court notes that although Plaintiff titled his motion “Motion to Quash Deposition of Non-Parties,” this motion is in fact a motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum.