United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
MICHAEL T. PARKER, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum and Motion for Protective Order  . Having considered the parties' submissions and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motions   should be granted as set forth below.
Plaintiffs in this action are Joshua Ezell ("Ezell") and his wife Brandi Ezell. Plaintiffs' claims arise from Ezell's employment with Purvis Auto Collision, Inc. ("Purvis Auto") and his termination from that employment. Purvis Auto is a automotive body shop and repair business. Ezell worked as an automotive painter for Purvis Auto from August, 2011, until August 7, 2014, when he was terminated.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed this action, alleging that Defendants (1) defamed Plaintiffs, (2) maliciously interfered with Ezell's employment, (3) terminated Ezell in violation of public policy, (4) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Ezell overtime, and (5) wrongfully invaded Plaintiffs' privacy. Plaintiffs also alleges that Defendants' actions constituted negligence, gross negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, and slander.
On February 10, 2015, Plaintiffs served subpoenas duces tecum on (1) Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, (2) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (3) Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, (4) Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company, and (5) Progressive Gulf Insurance Company. The subpoenas command that each of these non-party insurance companies produce:
1. All Estimates for service made by Purvis Auto Collision to you from January 1, 2011 until August 1, 2014.
2. All Estimates for service paid by you to Purvis Auto Collision from January 1, 2011 until August 1, 2014.
See Returns    . The subpoenas include the following "definitions":
Purvis Auto Collision Purvis Auto Collision 3023 HWY 11 609 Broadway Drive Purvis, MS 39475 Hattiesburg, MS 39401
In their Motions  , Defendants ask the Court to quash the subpoenas because they seek documents which contain confidential and/or proprietary customer, pricing, and revenue information. Defendants also ask the Court for a protective order limiting the subpoenas because they seek irrelevant information or, in the alternative, limiting the disclosure of any information gained by the subpoenas. Defendants point out that Plaintiff is now employed by Advanced Auto Collision, one of Defendants' competitors. In response, Plaintiffs argue that the information sought by the subpoenas is not ...