The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIANE LAWLESS, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. * Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-11089-IT
*
TOWN OF FREETOWN, et al., *
*
Defendants. *
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
May 30, 2024
TALWANI, D.J.
Nonparty witness Richard Brown has filed a letter with the court requesting that a
subpoena from Plaintiff Diane Lawless commanding his appearance and testimony at her
upcoming civil trial be vacated because (1) he was not employed by Defendant Town of
Freetown when the actions that are the subject of this suit were taken against Lawless; (2) he is
currently employed as the interim town manager of a town in Connecticut and does not have
availability to testify; and (3) he is suffering from a medical condition that makes traveling
burdensome and painful. The court treats Mr. Brown’s letter as a motion to quash.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides that a properly served subpoena may be
quashed or modified if it “subjects a person to an undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv).
In determining whether to quash, a court “consider[s] issues such as relevance, the requesting
party’s need, the breadth of the request, and the burden imposed when analyzing whether a
subpoena places an undue burden on a nonparty.” Green v. Cosby, 152 F.Supp.3d 31, 36 (D.
Mass. 2015) (quoting Lindsay v. C. R. Bard, Inc., 2011 WL 240104, at *1 (M. D. Pa. Jan. 24,
2011). “The party resisting discovery bears the burden of showing that the subpoena imposes an
undue burden, and it ‘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.” In re New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. Products Liability
Litigation, 2013 WL 6058483, at *6 (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2013).
Plaintiff contends that Mr. Brown’s testimony is key to her case, where he was her
supervisor for half of her tenure with Freetown, another key witness in the case, Cheryl Estrella,
reported to Plaintiff but lodged complaints about Plaintiff to Mr. Brown directly, and the
Freetown Board of Selectmen delegated investigation of Plaintiff’s husband’s presence in the
treasurer/collector’s office to Mr. Brown, and Mr. Brown concluded that neither Plaintiff nor her
husband did anything wrong. Pls.’ Response to Letter of Richard Brown 2 [Doc. No. 261]. That
Mr. Brown no longer works for Freetown does not make these alleged facts less relevant.
The difficulties cited by Mr. Brown fall short of justifying quashing the subpoena to
testify. To quash the subpoena where Mr. Brown has alleged inconvenience, but without
evidence that he is medically unable to testify, would prejudice Plaintiff’s ability to put on her
case at trial.
Accordingly, Mr. Brown’s request that the subpoena to testify at trial be vacated is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
May 30, 2024 /s/Indira Talwani
United States District Judge