MEMORANDUM ORDER

JEFF KAPLAN, Magistrate Judge

Defendant Thomas Michael York ("York") has filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on his former employer, Stifel, Nicholaus Company, Inc. ("SNC"). For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted.

This is a miscellaneous action arising out of a lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Clayton Reynolds ("Reynolds") against York and Roth Capital Partners, LLC ("RCP), which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Reynolds v. York, No. H-03-1108. As part of discovery in that case, Reynolds served a subpoena duces tecum on SNC, a Dallas-based brokerage firm, for documents pertaining to York while employed by the company. These documents include, inter alia: (1) York's entire personnel file; (2) all correspondence and agreements between York and SNC; (3) documents reflecting the amount of compensation paid to York; (4) documents pertaining to any counseling or disciplinary action taken against York; and (5) documents pertaining to any restrictions placed on York's authority to trade or sell investment products. ( See Def. Mot., Exh. 2). York moves to quash the subpoena on the grounds that production and dissemination of his personal information has no relevance to the claims asserted in the underlying lawsuit and constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, . . . For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii).

In the underlying lawsuit, Reynolds alleges that York "churned" accounts and recommended unsuitable investments between October 2000 and January 2002 while employed by RCP. Previously, from September 9, 1997 through October 1998, York was a financial advisor for SNC. It is undisputed that York never handled accounts for Reynolds while at SNC. Nevertheless, Reynolds wants records from York's former employer in an attempt to impeach his credibility, establish a pattern and practice of defrauding customers, and discover whether he suffers from a medical condition that affects his ability to travel and testify in this case. ( See Jt. Stat. Rep., 7/1/04 at 7-8, ¶¶ 9-11). This broad discovery amounts to nothing more than a fishing expedition. Even if the discovery sought by Reynolds is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the court finds that York's privacy interests far outweigh any likely benefit to Reynolds in obtaining the records he seeks. See FED. R. Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(iii).

Accordingly, York's motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum served on SNC is granted. SNC shall not produce any of the documents specified in the subpoena.

SO ORDERED.