## Facts

- State Farm sought discovery in a Hurricane Katrina insurance-coverage suit pending in the Southern District of Mississippi.
- Non-party witnesses Cori and Kerri Rigsby, former insurance adjusters, had provided information to authorities and filed a related qui tam action alleging improper shifting of wind-loss costs to a federal flood program.
- During discovery, State Farm served a Rule 45 subpoena duces tecum from the Eastern District of Virginia on AOL, an electronic communication service provider, seeking the contents of Rigsby-related emails (including all of Cori Rigsby’s emails over a six-week period).
- The Rigsbys moved to quash the subpoena in the Eastern District of Virginia.
- A magistrate judge granted the motion to quash; State Farm objected, seeking district-judge review under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard.

## Issues

1. Whether the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2703) permits an email service provider to disclose email contents in response to a private civil discovery subpoena.
2. Whether the subpoena was overbroad and imposed an undue burden on non-parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.
3. Whether privilege disputes tied to the Mississippi litigation should be addressed by the Eastern District of Virginia or by the court presiding over the underlying action.

## Decision

- The district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s order quashing the subpoena.
- The Stored Communications Act barred AOL from producing the contents of the Rigsbys’ emails in response to a private civil subpoena because no statutory disclosure exception applied.
- The subpoena was independently overbroad and unduly burdensome, including requests for all emails over a defined period without sufficient tailoring to relevant claims or defenses.
- The court agreed that privilege questions related to the Mississippi litigation were more appropriately resolved by the Southern District of Mississippi.

## Legal Principles

- An electronic communication service provider may not disclose the contents of communications in electronic storage in response to a private civil subpoena unless a Stored Communications Act exception applies.
- Civil discovery tools, including Rule 45 subpoenas, cannot compel conduct that federal statute prohibits.
- Courts must quash or modify subpoenas that impose an undue burden, with special sensitivity to burdens placed on non-parties and to requests not limited to relevant matters.
- Privilege determinations tied to an underlying action are generally best made by the court managing that action to reduce inconsistency and inefficiency.

## Conclusion

The court upheld quashing a third-party subpoena to an email provider because the Stored Communications Act prohibited disclosure of email contents in response to a private civil subpoena, and because the request was overbroad, unduly burdensome to non-parties, and entangled with privilege issues better handled by the court overseeing the underlying litigation.


In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)