Free Motion to Quash - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 45.0 kB
Pages: 6
Date: September 28, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,313 Words, 8,324 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/9339/60-1.pdf

Download Motion to Quash - District Court of Delaware ( 45.0 kB)


Preview Motion to Quash - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv-00022-MPT

Document 60

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE : COMPANY, and PACK & PROCESS, INC.

: : : Plaintiff, : : Civil Action No. 05-0022 (KAJ) MALY YAN : Defendant : _____________________________________________________________________________ YAN THOU, Individually and as : Administrator of the Estates of Oeurn : Mam, Deceased and Navy Yan, Deceased : Civil Action No. 05-0513 (KAJ) et al., : Plaintiffs : VS. : : PACK & PROCESS, INC. : AND : ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE : COMPANY : Defendants :

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS NOW COME Defendants, Yan Thou, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Oeurn Mam, deceased, and Navy Yan, deceased, Chan Yan, Thuha Son, Chieu Thi Huynh, Maly Yan and Bay Thi Nguyen, Unchalee Vong; Donkeo Phraviehit; Kusti Leman; Tjajah Chandra, as mother and legal guardian of Lani Chandra and Lani Chandra, in her own right; Zair Shah; Khan Gul; Salim Kahn; Mohammed Sardar Khan, as co-administrators of the Estate of Mohammed Azin; Soly Chan, as administrator of the Estate of Lang, Kehm, deceased, also known as Lang Chhay; Thorn Bun Khem as the administrator of the Estate of Lam Khem, deceased, by and through their undersigned counsel, and respectfully request that the Court Quash the Subpoenas served in this matter.

Case 1:05-cv-00022-MPT

Document 60

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 2 of 6

The basis for this Motion are set forth in Defendant's brief filed herewith.

WEISS AND SAVILLE, P.A. BY: S/Yvonne Takvorian Saville, Esquire YVONNE TAKVORIAN SAVILLE, ESQUIRE 1220 North Market Street Suite 604 P.O. Box 370 Wilmington DE 19801 (302) 656-0400 and

DATED: 9/28/05

KLINE & SPECTER, P.C. BY: S/Jonathan M. Cohen, Esquire/ JC593 JONATHAN M. COHEN, ESQUIRE JOSHUA VAN NAARDEN, ESQUIRE 1525 Locust Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia PA 19102 (215) 772-1000

2

Case 1:05-cv-00022-MPT

Document 60

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 3 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE : COMPANY, and PACK & PROCESS, INC. Plaintiff, MALY YAN

: : : : : :

Civil Action No.

05-0022 (KAJ)

Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ YAN THOU, Individually and as : Administrator of the Estates of Oeurn : Mam, Deceased and Navy Yan, Deceased : Civil Action No. 05-0513 (KAJ) et al., : Plaintiffs : VS. : : PACK & PROCESS, INC. : AND : ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE : COMPANY : Defendants :

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

Defendants Yan Thou, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Oeurn Mam, deceased, and Navy Yan, deceased, Chan Yan, Thuha Son, Chieu Thi Huynh, Maly Yan and Bay Thi Nguyen respectfully submits this Brief in Support of its Motion to Quash Subpoenas and respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion based on the following:

I.

FACTS These consolidated actions are Declaratory Judgment Actions arising out of an

automobile accident which occurred on June 18, 2001 involving Yan Thou, Oeurn Mam, Navy Yan, Chan Yan, Thuha Son, Chieu Thi Huynh, Bay Thi Nguyen, Uchalee Vong, Donkeo

Case 1:05-cv-00022-MPT

Document 60

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 4 of 6

Phravichit, Kusti Leman, Lani Chandra, Zair Shah, Khan Gul, Mohammed Azim, Lang Khem and Lam Khem who were returning from work at Pack and Process and were passengers in a 1992 Dodge Ram Van, bearing Pennsylvania license plate No. DZK8292, traveling northbound on I-495 toward Philadelphia. The 1992 Dodge Ram van was owned and operated by Maly Yan, who, twice under oath, admitted to acting as the agent of defendant Pack and Process in transporting nineteen passengers in the van back and forth to the Pack and Process factory in New Castle, Delaware. Eighteen of the passengers were contract workers supplied by Lam to work at Pack and Process, and were transported by Maly Yan, acting as the agent of Pack and Process, from their neighborhood in Philadelphia to work at the Pack and Process facility in New Castle, Delaware, and back again to Philadelphia at the end of the work day. The accident caused severe injuries to all of the occupants of the van, and killing Navy Yan, Oeurn Mam, Mohammed Azim, Lang Khem and Lam Khem. Lawsuits were filed but only one action filed against only, Maly Yan, was never consolidated and proceeded to trial on January 14, 2005, against only defendant Maly Yan before the Honorable Sandra J. Moss, sitting without a jury1. The trial was concluded on January 20, 2005, and a verdict in favor of all plaintiffs and against Maly Yan was entered in the total amount of $10,228,467.00. The disposition of that one action (which does not include all plaintiffs-who have a right to a jury trial on all issues, including Maly Yan's agency-or all defendants) gave rise to the declaratory judgment actions. On February 2, 2005, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company filed its Declaratory Judgement Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of

Counsel for Pack and Process was given notice of this trial in Pennsylvania, but declined to intervene or participate; choosing instead to sit in the public gallery during the proceedings. 2

1

Case 1:05-cv-00022-MPT

Document 60

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 5 of 6

Delaware. On February 23, 2005, Defendants filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These actions were consolidated in the District Court of Delaware on September 8, 2005. On September 14, 2005, St. Paul Insurance Company and Pack and Process served Notice of Subpoenas for Production of Documents addressed to all Defendants requesting various records including: workers compensation records, social security records, department of welfare records, unemployment records, risk management records, insurance company records and drivers licensing records. In total, Defendants were noticed of no fewer than 100 subpoenas. See the list of providers subpoenaed for each Defendant and corresponding reference numbers attached as Exhibit "A." Defendants object to these subpoenas in that they are irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and unduly buredensome. ARGUMENT Federal Rules of Evidence 402 states, "Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible." (F.R.E. 402). Rule 401 defines "relevant"as, "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination to the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence". (F.R.E. 401). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b) (1) states, "relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence." (F.R.C.P. 26 (b) (1)) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 26 (b) (2) (iii) states: "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the important of 3

Case 1:05-cv-00022-MPT

Document 60

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 6 of 6

the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues". F.R.C.P. 26 (b) (2) (iii) The issues surrounding these consolidated declaratory actions are limited in scope to employment and agency. See Defendants Complaint attached as Exhibit "B." The requested documents are not only irrelevant but they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the issue in this case are so far removed from the subject matter requested in Plaintiffs' Subpoenas, that the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully requests that their Motion be granted and that the Subpoenas be Quashed. WEISS AND SAVILLE, P.A. BY: S/Yvonne Takvorian Saville, Esquire YVONNE TAKVORIAN SAVILLE, ESQUIRE 1220 North Market Street Suite 604 P.O. Box 370 Wilmington DE 19801 (302) 656-0400 and KLINE & SPECTER, P.C. BY: S/Jonathan M. Cohen, Esquire/ JC593 JONATHAN M. COHEN, ESQUIRE JOSHUA VAN NAARDEN, ESQUIRE 1525 Locust Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia PA 19102 (215) 772-1000 4

DATED: 9/28/05