Helena Chemical Company et al v. Skinner et al
ORDER denying 37 Motion to Quash; pltf's Motions to Compel 44 47 are GRANTED; Simmons First Bank and First Security Bank are hereby ORDERED to comply with this Order within 14 days; the Motions for More Definite Statements of Counterclaims 38 40 42 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 1/26/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
LITTLE ROCK DIVISION
HELENA CHEMICAL COMPANY and
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
NO: 4:11CV00691 SWW
JOHN BOSWELL SKINNER, JR., ET
Helena Chemical Company (“Helena”) and Federal Insurance Company bring this action
against former Helena employees John Boswell Skinner, Jr., Thomas Chris Coleman, Kurt
Nelson Catlett, Adam Ross Catlett, and Wayne Norman Bass. Now before the Court are (1)
Movants Ag Chem Direct, Inc. and David Johnston’s motion to quash (docket entry #37) and
Helena’s response in opposition (docket entry #62); (2) Helena’s motions to compel (docket
entries #44, #45, #47, #48), Movants Ag Chem Direct, Inc. and David Johnston’s responses in
opposition (docket entries #51, #52, #53, #54), and Helena’s reply (docket entry #57); and (3)
Helena’s motions for more definite statements of counterclaims (docket entries #38, #39, #40,
#41, #42, #43) and Counter Claimants’ responses in opposition (docket entries #58, #59, #60,
#61). After careful consideration, and for reasons that follow, Movants’ motion to quash is
denied, Helena’s motions to compel are granted, and Helena’s motion for a more definite
statement is denied.
Plaintiffs charge that Defendants engaged in various fraudulent schemes to appropriate
money and property belonging to Helena. For example, it is alleged that during their
employment with Helena, Separate Defendants Kurt Nelson Catlett and Adam Ross Catlett used
Helena’s computer system to create invoices for the sale of Helena’s goods, which customers
never ordered, and they credited customer accounts for the fabricated purchases. According to
the complaint allegations, “the brothers Catlett” personally sold the goods listed on the fictitious
invoices, and they retained the proceeds. It is further alleged that Defendants Skinner, Coleman,
and Bass were complicit and in some or all of the Catlett brothers’ fraudulent schemes.
Along with the complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to conduct expedited
discovery. Among other things, Plaintiffs sought to subpoena banks that may possess safety
deposit box logs, account statements, and images of checks and deposit tickets for Defendants
and companies connected to Defendants. The Court granted Plaintiffs permission to issue
subpoenas to specific banks, including Simmons Bank and First Security Bank, both located in
Searcy. See docket entry #18. Additionally, on October 4, 2011, the Court entered a protective
order providing, among other things, that any material designated as confidential by a party or
non-party shall by closely controlled and used only for purposes of this litigation. See docket
Plaintiffs subpoenaed First Security Bank and Simmons Bank for the production of
account and safe-deposit documents for Defendants Bass, Coleman, and Skinner and non-parties
Ag Chem Direct and Ag Chem Direct, Inc. (collectively, “Ag Chem”). See docket entry #37,
Exs. A, B. Additionally, Plaintiffs subpoenaed Ag Chem for the production of items including
telephone records, advertising material, price sheets, employee rosters, and documents related to
Ag Chem’s purchases of goods from Defendants. See docket entry #37, Ex. C.
Ag Chem and David Johnston’s Motion to Quash and Helena’s Motions to Compel
Ag Chem and David Johnston, the owner of Ag Chem, move to quash the
aforementioned subpoenas. In support of their motion, Movants asserts that Ag Chem is
Helena’s business competitor and that the documents requested include Ag Chem’s customer
information “that would harm [Ag Chem] if in the hands of Plaintiff or Counsel.” Docket entry
#37, at 2.
In response, Helena asserts that Ag Chem has failed to demonstrate how the protection
afforded under the Court’s protective order is insufficient. Additionally, Helena reports that
there is no present dispute between the parties with respect to items sought under the subpoena
served upon Ag Chem. See docket entry #63, Ex. #3. However, a dispute remains regarding
records subpoenaed from Simmons Bank and First Security Bank, and Helena asks the Court to
compel production of these records.
In support of its motions to compel, Helena presents a copy of an affidavit by Johnston,
which he voluntarily provided to Helena’s counsel. See docket entry #44, Ex. #11. Johnston
testifies that Defendant Skinner approached him in 2008 and asked whether he would be
interested in “purchasing free goods that Helena Chemical had acquired from several different
chemical representatives.” Id., ¶ 2. Johnston sates that he “purchased a few items in 2008,
nothing in 2009, several items in 2010, and very few in 2011, as evidenced by checks written.”
Id., ¶ 3. Johnston testifies that he wrote checks to “Johnny Skinner, JBS, Helena Chemical,
Chris Coleman, and Catlett as instructed by Johnny Skinner.” Id., ¶ 7. Attached to Johnston’s
affidavit are checks payable to Johnny Skinner, Chris Coleman, Kurt Catlett, Adam Catlett, JBS
Agri Solutions, Inc., and Helena Chemicals, which are drawn on Ag Chem’s accounts at First
Security and Simmons.
Helena also provides copies of letters from counsel for Simmons Bank and First Security
Bank, objecting to the disclosure of documents sought under Helena’s subpoenas. See docket
entry #47, Ex. #11; docket entry #44, Ex. #12. Counsel for Helena responded to the letters,
noting the protective order entered in this case.
See docket entry #47, Ex. #12; docket entry
#44, Ex. #13. Furthermore, in an effort to allay concerns regarding revelation of Ag Chem
customers, Helena also excused the banks from producing deposit tickets, items of deposit that
comprise a given deposit transactions, and any other documents associated with items of deposit.
Rule 45(c)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives the issuing court
discretion to quash or modify a subpoena that requires the disclosure of privileged or protected
matter or that subjects a person to undue burden. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii)-(iii). Here,
as revealed by Johnston’s affidavit and checks attached thereto, the documents sought from
Simmons Bank and First Security Bank are certainly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and may lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, the Court finds that the movants have
failed to show that the subpoenas in question require disclosure of privileged or protected matter.
The motion to quash will be denied, and Helena’s motions to compel will be granted.
Helena’s Motions for More Definite Statements of Counterclaims
Along with their answers, Defendants Skinner, Kurt Nelson Catlett, and Adam Ross
Catlett filed counterclaims against Helena, seeking relief under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The counter claimants also seek relief under breach of
contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment theories. In their pleadings, counter
claimants allege they are entitled to bonuses under Helena’s benefit plan.
Helena asserts that Defendants’ counterclaims are largely unintelligible, and the counter
claimants respond that their pleadings are sufficient to provide notice of their claims. Rule 12(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may move for a more definite
statement before interposing a responsive pleading when a pleading is “so vague and ambiguous
that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(e). A motion under Rule 12(e) is designed to remedy unintelligible pleadings and should not
be granted where, as in this case, the information sought is not necessary to form a responsive
pleading and can be gained by other means. Helena’s motions for more definite statements of
counterclaims will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Movants Ag Chem Direct, Inc. and David
Johnston’s motion to quash (docket entry #37) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Helena Chemical Company’s motions to
compel (docket entries #44, #47) are GRANTED. Simmons First Bank and First Security Bank
are hereby ordered to produce, within fourteen (14) days from the entry date of this order,
documents sought by Helena’s subpoenas, with the exception of documents delineated in
counsel’s letters dated October 20 and 26, 2011. See docket entry #47, Ex. #12; docket entry
#44, Ex. #13.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Helena Chemical Company’s motions for
more definite statements of counterclaims (docket entries #38, #40, #42) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?