Mohamed v. Full Life Care

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BASRA D. MOHAMED, CASE NO. C22-1010-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH 9 v.

10 FULL LIFE CARE, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Basra Mohamed’s motion to quash 13 Defendants’ subpoena served on Mohamed’s former employer, Seattle Housing Authority 14 (“SHA”). Dkt. No. 76. For the reasons explained herein, the Court denies the motion. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Mohamed filed this suit against her former employer Defendant Full Life Care and its 17 affiliate, Defendant Transforming Age, alleging a discriminatory termination stemming from her 18 request for a COVD-19 vaccine exemption on religious grounds. See Dkt. No. 21. 19 Defendants served Mohamed with discovery requests seeking, inter alia, information and 20 documentation regarding her post-termination employment and income, and Defendants found 21 Mohamed’s responses to be insufficient. See Dkt. No. 65-2 at 6–7, 9, 20, 24; Dkt. No. 65-3 at 3– 22 4, 9, 11. When Mohamed failed to supplement her responses by the deadline agreed upon by the 23 parties (Dkt. No. 65-4), Defendants filed a motion to compel (Dkt. No. 64), which the Court 24 1 granted. See Dkt. No. 83. Defendants also notified Mohamed that they intended to serve a 2 subpoena for her employment records (related to, inter alia, her compensation, requests for 3 accommodation, discipline, or termination) on SHA, where Defendants had reason to believe that

4 Mohamed was employed after her employment was terminated by Defendants. Dkt. No. 80-1. 5 Upon receiving notice of Defendants’ intent to issue the subpoena, Mohamed objected to 6 Defendants via email on October 28, 2023. Dkt. No. 80-1 at 2–3. According to Mohamed, the 7 employment records sought in the subpoena are irrelevant to this litigation because she amended 8 her complaint to remove requests for front pay and reinstatement. Dkt. No. 80-3 at 2. Mohamed 9 also objected to the subpoena on the grounds that “Employment records often contain sensitive 10 and personal information.” Id. at 3. Mohamed asked Defendants to either withdraw the subpoena 11 or provide written justification for each category of documents requested. Id. 12 Defendants responded to Mohamed’s objections on October 30, 2023, noting that the

13 operative version of her complaint seeks lost wages, and thus the employment records sought from 14 SHA are relevant to that claim and also relate to Defendants’ affirmative defense of failure to 15 mitigate damages. Dkt. No. 80-1 at 2. Defendants went on to explain that the SHA employment 16 records would indicate whether Mohamed sought a religious exemption from any vaccine 17 requirement imposed by SHA, which would pertain to Defendants’ defense in this case, i.e., 18 whether Mohamed’s alleged religious beliefs are sincerely held. Id.; see also Dkt. No. 79 at 7. 19 Defendants informed Mohamed that they would proceed with serving the subpoena, and Mohamed 20 did not respond. Id. 21 Defendants served the subpoena, with a response deadline of November 17, 2023, and SHA 22 contacted Mohamed to notify her that it would produce responsive documents unless she indicated

23 that she would file a motion to quash the subpoena by November 17, 2023, at 4 p.m. Dkt. No. 80- 24 5. Mohamed filed the instant motion to quash at midnight on November 18, 2023. Dkt. No. 76. 1 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A), a court can modify or quash a 3 subpoena upon timely motion, meaning that the motion was filed “within the time set in the

4 subpoena for compliance.” Smith v. Legacy Partners Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00629-JHC-BAT, 5 2022 WL 1194125, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2022). 6 In this case, Defendants’ subpoena directed SHA to respond by November 17, 2023, and 7 SHA contacted Mohamed to notify her of its intent to comply unless it heard otherwise from her 8 by 4 p.m. on November 17, 2023. Dkt. No. 80-5. There is no evidence that Mohamed 9 responded to SHA within that timeframe, and she did not file her motion to quash until after the 10 compliance deadline passed. Dkt. No. 76. Although she contends that she was unsure how 11 timeliness was defined, for purposes of her motion to quash, her motion would be untimely 12 under any of the deadlines she apparently considered. See Dkt. No. 82 at 2–3.

13 Moreover, although Mohamed contends that the SHA employment records sought in the 14 subpoena are not relevant because “as clearly indicated in my proposed Third Amended 15 Complaint, which was available to the defense at the time of issuing the subpoena, I am not 16 seeking front pay” (Dkt. No. 76 at 2–3), she has not amended her complaint to make any such 17 modification. As noted by Defendants (Dkt. No. 80-1 at 2), Mohamed’s second amended 18 complaint continues to be the operative complaint in this matter and it includes a claim for lost 19 wages.1 See Dkt. No. 21 at 13–14. Defendants have explained to Mohamed as well as to the 20 Court how the information sought is relevant to supporting their position in this litigation (Dkt. 21 No. 79, Dkt. No. 80-1), and Mohamed has not shown that the information sought is not a proper 22 subject of discovery. 23

24 1 Notably, even Mohamed’s draft third amended complaint requests lost wages. See Dkt. No. 85-2 at 33. 1 Finally, to the extent that Mohamed objects to the subpoena on the grounds that it is 2 overbroad and “appears more as a tactic to burden rather than a genuine pursuit of relevant 3 information” (Dkt. No. 76 at 3), she has presented no evidence suggesting that it would be

4 burdensome for SHA to comply with the subpoena. Moreover, SHA did not object to the 5 subpoena on this or any other grounds. See Dkt. No. 80-5. 6 Because Defendants have shown that the information sought by the subpoena is relevant 7 to this litigation, and because Mohamed failed to timely object to the subpoena, the Court finds 8 no merit in Mohamed’s motion to quash. 9 III. CONCLUSION 10 For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to quash. Dkt. No. 76. 11 The parties are directed to review the Court’s chambers procedures, with particular 12 attention to the process set out for discovery motions. See Dkt. No. 88 at 2. The Court will strike

13 any future discovery-related motions that do not comply with this procedure. 14 Dated this 19th day of December, 2023. 15 A 16 Kymberly K. Evanson 17 United States District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24