ANDREW W. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena Issued to Nonparty Jean Robinson (Dkt. No. 60), the Plaintiff's response and Robinson's reply. The motion has been referred to the undersigned for resolution.
Jean Robinson is the former general counsel of SourceAmerica. Plaintiff Esteban Garcia spoke with Ms. Robinson while she was SourceAmerica's general counsel about his complaints and concerns with PCSI, and she conveyed his allegations to the Ability One Commission. Because of these facts, Garcia subpoenaed Robinson in January 2017, to give a deposition in this case. The deposition took place on March 30, 2017.
Though the parties have submitted over 200 pages of paper on this motion, it actually raises a quite narrow issue—is Robinson's settlement agreement with SourceAmerica relevant to this case? The answer is, it is not. As noted, Robinson's relevance to Garcia's claim against PCSI is the fact that she received information from Garcia about his allegations concerning PCSI, and she passed those allegations on to the Ability One Commission. Robinson's dispute with SourceAmerica was unrelated to Garcia's dispute with PCSI. Garcia does not challenge these facts, but contends nonetheless that he should be permitted to see the agreement. He argues that the settlement agreement "relates directly to statements Robinson made that were recorded," and he is concerned that the settlement agreement restricts her ability to testify fully about the taped conversations. Further, he contends that Robinson may fear retaliation by SourceAmerica, and speculates that there could be provisions in the settlement agreement through which SourceAmerica could punish her if she gives testimony that is critical of SourceAmerica.
Garcia's first argument is at best confused. He states that he is concerned that the settlement agreement may restrict Robinson's ability to testify about her taped conversations, yet it appears that he has transcripts of those very conversations and thus was free to question her about them in the deposition—indeed, it appears that he did so. Regardless, the Court has reviewed the settlement agreement, and the only provision in the agreement that has any bearing on the taped conversations is a provision which required Robinson to provide SourceAmerica with the following signed statement:
Clearly, nothing in this clause limits Robinson's ability to testify regarding the taped conversations, and Garcia's concerns on this point are not well-founded.
Similarly, his speculation that the agreement might provide SourceAmerica with the tools to retaliate against Robinson if it is unhappy with her testimony, is also unfounded. While there is a generic non-disparagement clause in the agreement, it is very much like those the Court has seen countless times in settlement agreements. It applies only to "disparaging or derogatory public remarks," and does not in any way prevent Robinson from giving truthful testimony in a court proceeding. Nor is there any liquidated damages clause for any breach of the agreement. In short, Garcia's concerns have no basis.
Because the settlement agreement has no relevance to the dispute before the Court, and requiring Robinson to produce it would be unduly burdensome in light of her obligation to keep it confidential, the Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena Issued to Nonparty Jean Robinson (Dkt. No. 60) is