Waxse, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motions to Quash Subpoenas (doc. 57 62).
Defendant moves to quash a subpoena served on or about December 4, 2002, on Wells Fargo Bank in Las Vegas, Nevada ("Las Vegas subpoena"). That subpoena seeks the banking records of Defendant. Defendant also moves to quash a subpoena served on or about January 21, 2002, on Wells Fargo Bank in Farmington, New Mexico ("New Mexico subpoena"). That subpoena seeks the banking records for Acapulco Financial Services, Sycamore Financial Services and Payday Plus.
Generally speaking, a party to a lawsuit does not have standing to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on a third party. Flint Hills Scientific, LLC v. Davidchack, No. 00-2334-KHV, 2001 WL 1717902, at *3 (D.Kan. Nov. 9, 2001); Johnson v. Gmeinder, 191 F.R.D. 638, 639-40 n. 2 (D.Kan. 2000). Thus, a motion to quash a subpoena may only be made by the party to whom the subpoena is directed. Id. An exception is made where the party seeking to challenge the subpoena has "a personal right or privilege with respect to the subject matter requested in the subpoena." Flint Hills, 2001 WL 1717902 at *3; Johnson, 191 F.R.D. at 639-40 n. 2.
Here, Plaintiff clearly has a "personal interest" in his own banking records, i.e., those records that are sought in the Las Vegas subpoena. Thus, Plaintiff has standing to challenge that subpoena. To successfully challenge the subpoena, however, Plaintiff must be able to show that the subpoena either (1) "requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies," or (2) subjects Plaintiff to "undue burden." Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii) (iv). Plaintiff has made no such showing.
With respect to the New Mexico subpoena, Plaintiff has failed to show how he has a personal right or interest in the banking records of Acapulco Financial Services, Sycamore Financial Services, or Payday Plus. Even if Plaintiff had made such a showing, he still has failed to establish that the subpoena requires the disclosure of privileged or other protected matter or that it would cause him undue burden, as set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(A).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motions to Quash (doc. 57 and 62) are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.