Evidence: Non-party lacks standing to quash subpoenas

Where a man moved to quash subpoenas issued by his ex-wife in a legal malpractice suit, his motion was denied. Even though he was affected by the subpoenas, standing to quash or modify a subpoena duces tecum is granted only to the person to whom the subpoena is directed or a party to the litigation in which the subpoena is issued.

Background

Firouzeh Dinarany sued Daniel Dannenbaum and Dannenbaum Law Firm PLLC for legal malpractice, alleging they failed to adequately represent her in her divorce from John Stark. Her counsel issued subpoenas to Citibank and TD Ameritrade. He served the subpoena on counsel for defendants, but not on Mr. Stark or his counsel.

Citibank has fully complied with the Citibank subpoena. After alerting Mr. Stark to the Ameritrade subpoena, Ameritrade has fully complied with the subpoena served upon it. Mr. Stark has moved to quash the subpoenas and for his attorney’s fees.

Notice

Applying the plain meaning of the language used in the rules, the court concludes that, upon issuing the subpoenas, plaintiff’s counsel was obligated to mail or deliver them to the Fairfax County Circuit Court Clerk’s office and serve them on counsel for defendants. There was no obligation to notify Mr. Starks or his counsel, neither of whom are counsel of record in this case or a party to it. Because Mr. Liberty has no liberty or property interest in the documents responsive to the subpoenas, this holding does not violate his Due Process rights. Because plaintiff’s counsel complied with the applicable notice and service requirements, Mr. Stark’s motions must be denied on this basis.

Standing

Standing to quash or modify a subpoena duces tecum is granted only to the person to whom the subpoena is directed or a party to the litigation in which the subpoena is issued. Here, while Mr. Stark’s information is subject to the subpoenas, he is neither the person to whom either subpoena is directed nor an opposing party to the case at bar. While he is no doubt affected by the subpoenas, he has no standing to quash or modify them under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. This holding does not violate Mr. Stark’s Due Process rights, as he has no liberty or property interest at issue. The same is true of Mr. Stark’s request for a protective order.

Mootness and relevance

Mr. Stark seeks to quash the subpoenas, despite the fact that all the documents responsive to the subpoenas have been produced. The matter is moot and the motion must be denied on this basis.

Mr. Stark contends that the information contained in his account records at Citibank and TD Ameritrade, sought by the subpoenas, is not relevant to plaintiff’s claims in the instant suit. However, that information will shed light on the separate assets and income relevant to the equitable distribution and support issues in the divorce proceeding between plaintiff and Mr. Stark, and what information would have been available to defendants in the course of properly conducting that litigation on behalf of plaintiff.

Non-party John Stark’s motion to quash denied.

Dinarany v. Dannenbaum, Case No. CL-2023-1823, Aug. 19, 2024. Fairfax County Circuit Court (Frieden). VLW 024-8-065. 7 pp.