Tri-State Armature & Electrical Works Inc v. Houston et al

Filing 53

ORDER: The Court can handle this dispute on the papers. The proposed joint letter is a good start, and the Court confirms its bench ruling that the letter should come from all counsel. It needs two tweaks and some additional information, though, to b e fair to EDE, Stripling, and Houston, who objected to these subpoenas. The Court could have, and should have, been clearer from the bench about the subpoenas. They're from Tri-State, not all the parties. Discovery disputes, 49 and 52 , addressed. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/18/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION

TRI-STATE ARMATURE
& ELECTRICAL WORKS, INC.

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 3:16-cv-134-DPM

TIMOTHY B. HOUSTON; ELECTRO DESIGN
ENGINEERING, INC.; and CELETA STRIPLING

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

The Court can handle this dispute on the papers.
1. The proposed joint letter is a good start, and the Court confirms its

bench ruling that the letter should come from all counsel. It needs two tweaks
and some additional information, though, to be fair to EDE, Stripling, and
Houston, who objected to these subpoenas. The changes reflect how we got
here. And the Court remains convinced that a joint letter is the best way to
reduce static involving these third parties.
Please revise the current last sentence of the first paragraph as indicated,
and then add the new sentences at the end of that paragraph. All the changes
are shown with strike outs and italics. The final version sent should be a
clean copy, of course.

The undersigned Counsel represent the parties identified below, and
pursuant to an Order of the Court, they are jointly subrnitting sending
to your company the enclosed subpoena from Tri-State to your Company
for the production of the documents and information requested. Tri-

state wanted to get this information from you; Electro Design Engineering,
Inc., Houston, and Stripling objected. The Court overruled that objection. The
Court ordered the lawyers for all parties to work together on this letter and the
attached requests for production of documents - to protect confidential
information, and to minimize interference in the ongoing business relationship
between your company and the parties in this lawsuit.
2. The Court could have, and should have, been clearer from the bench
about the subpoenas. They're from Tri-State, not all the parties. So please
revise the first sentence of the introductory paragraph in the requests for
production as follows.
The foregoing subpoena and this request for production of documents
is jointly issued and served by attorneys for all parties in this case per
Order of Judge D.P. ~farshall. , pursuant to the Order of Judge D.P.

Marshall Jr., issued and served by the lawyers for Tri-State, in collaboration
with the lawyers for Electro-Design Engineering, Inc., Timothy Houston, and
Celeta Stripling.
* * *
Discovery dispute, Ng 49 & 52, addressed.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. {/
United States District Judge

18
-2-

~ :l.0/7