Kelsey Wolf, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
IN RE: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL
SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
(NO. II)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:23-md-3071
MDL No. 3071
This Document Relates to: ALL CASES
ORDER
Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Discovery Conference (“Joint Motion”) filed by
Plaintiffs, RealPage, Inc. (“RealPage”) and Equity Residential (“Equity”) (Doc. No. 1343).
Plaintiffs request that the Court quash the third-party subpoenas issued by RealPage and Equity,
because the third-party subpoenas seek irrelevant information and violate the Case Management
Order (Doc. No. 818) and the Order on Deposition Protocol (Doc. No. 816). For the reasons that
follow, the Joint Motion and the request to quash third-party subpoenas will be denied.
First, as this Court explained in Diamond Resorts Int’l, Inc. v. Phillips, 2018 WL
4328257, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. July 16, 2018), “[o]rdinarily a party has no standing to seek to quash
a subpoena issued to someone who is not a party to the action, unless the objecting party claims
some personal right or privilege with regard to the documents sought.” 	(quoting 9A Charles
Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2549 (3d ed.). When a
party lacks standing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) allows the party to seek a protective order on behalf of
the third party. 	This settled law is dispositive of Plaintiffs’ request to quash. 	To the extent
Plaintiffs believe a protective order is appropriate, (Doc. No. 1343-1 at 4), the parties must first
meet and confer. See M.D. Tenn. Loc. Civ. R. 7.01(a)(1).
Second, to the extent Plaintiffs believe they have some “right” arising from the Case
Management Order and/or the Order on Deposition Protocol, this Court does not find any clear
Case 3:24-cv-01196 Document 266 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

2
violation of those orders. 	Plaintiffs tacitly acknowledge that RealPage and Equity “served
subpoenas on January 13, 2026, exactly 45 days before the close of discovery,” which is in
technical 	compliance 	with 	¶7 	(ii) 	of 	the 	Case 	Management 	Order 	and 	45-calendar-day
requirement in III.B of the Order on Deposition Protocol. 	Given Defendants’ confession of
“unfortunate oversight,” (id. at 4), concerning the two-day advance notice in ¶7(ii) of the Case
Management Order, this is insufficient for the relief Plaintiffs seek.
Third, the actual discovery to be produced, based upon Defendants’ representations,
appears to be relevant and minimal. 	Defendants state the discovery expected from the third-
party subpoenas is relevant. 	Regarding the subpoena to Advanced, Defendants offer that the
“subpoena targets evidence relevant to demonstrate the failings of Plaintiffs’ overbroad market
definitions, 	claims 	that 	Defendants 	possess 	market 	power, 	and 	insinuation 	that 	ordinary
competitive-pricing practices are collusive.” (Id. at 3). 	Likewise, Defendants believe the
subpoena to RentWatch is “highly relevant” to Plaintiffs’ “core theory” that RealPage and its
clients “would not have disclosed data to RealPage for use in RealPage’s Software absent a
conspiracy.” 	Id. 	Given that Defendant now proceeds with only four of the original ten
subpoenas it does not appear that the anticipated production will be overwhelming.
The Joint Motion and the request to quash are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-01196 Document 266 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>