At the judge’s request, Lynx Services has filed an amended motion to quash Safelite and Safelite Solutions’ subpoena in the Western U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania, explaining why this court is the “proper jurisdiction” and why attorneys feel the Columbus, Ohio-based company’s subpoena is “unduly burdensome” and seeks proprietary information. The subpoenas are related to the Connecticut lawsuit over the state’s new anti-steering law.
“Lynx is a Pittsburgh-based company with a principal place of business at 30 Isabella Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15212,” Lynx’s attorneys write. “The great majority of all documents sought by the subpoena are or would be located at Lynx’s office in Pittsburgh. Although the subpoena does not specifically name a location for compliance, Safelite served the subpoena on Lynx at its principal place of business in Pittsburgh.”
The company’s attorneys go on to identify Safelite as a primary competitor.
“The subpoena demands the production of documents that go to the very heart of Lynx’s business operations. Lynx respectfully requests the court quash the subpoena because: the subpoena is unduly burdensome as it seeks documents that are not relevant or necessary and the subpoena is overly broad; and the requested documents contain proprietary and/or confidential business information, some of which is subject to confidentiality provisions in agreements between Lynx and numerous insurance companies for which Lynx provides services,” attorneys claim.
“[L]ynx is not a party to the Connecticut lawsuit. Lynx’s status as a non-party makes the irrelevant and confidential information sought by Safelite all the more objectionable,” attorneys claim.
Lynx’s attorneys ask the court to quash the subpoena. Safelite has not responded to Lynx’s amended motion at press time. The court has not issued any new decisions.
To view a copy of Lynx’s amended motion, click here.