Trans-West, Inc. v. Southwest Luxury Coach Sales, LLC et al

Filing 67

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 48 Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Subpoenas; granting 55 Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Subpoena; granting 64 Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants' Supplements to Discovery Motions, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/28/2016.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02233-RM-MJW
TRANS-WEST, INC., a Colorado corporation d/b/a Transwest Truck Trailer RV,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWEST LUXURY COACH SALES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, &
SCOTT BUCHANAN, an individual,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
(Docket Nos. 46, 48, 55, & 64)
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that:
•

Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Docket No. 46) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
•

Interrogatory 1: Defendants’ motion is denied as to this
interrogatory. The Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) designation in Plaintiff’s
supplemental response, in combination with the deal jackets and
the spreadsheets, appears to be a full and fair response.

•

Interrogatory 5 & Interrogatory 14: Plaintiff is ORDERED to
produce the requested information and documents as to the
specific vehicles at issue in this lawsuit. Past that, the Court finds
that Defendants’ theory of relevancy is too attenuated to be
proportional to the needs of the case.

•

Interrogatory 7: As to the sales and inventory records from
SalesForce, Karmak, and Automotive Arts (records that have
already been provided in the form of Excel spreadsheets), Plaintiff
is ORDERED to produce or allow access to the records in native
formats, with complete metadata and with the capacity to produce
and download reports to a removable storage drive. Plaintiff may
do so through a dummy account with limited permissions, provided
that the limitations are agreed upon by counsel beforehand. All

such records shall be deemed “Confidential Information” pursuant
to the Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No. 35) in this case.
•

•

Interrogatory 12: Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce the requested
information and documents, insofar as the documents have been
compiled for use in the related state-court litigation. The Court
notes, further, that Plaintiff has a continuing obligation to
supplement this response, as the related state-court litigation
progresses.

•

Interrogatory 15: Defendants’ motion is denied as to this
interrogatory. Defendants offer no explanation as to why the Fed.
R. Civ. P. 33(d) designation in Plaintiff’s response is insufficient.

•

Interrogatory 17: Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce the requested
information and documents. The collateral source doctrine has no
bearing on the matter.

•

Request for Production 3: Defendants’ motion is denied insofar
as this appears moot in light of Plaintiff’s fifth supplemental
disclosure. Defendants may renew the issue if the Court is
mistaken.

•

•

Interrogatory 11: Defendants’ motion is denied as to this
interrogatory. The responses appear full and fair in light of
Plaintiff’s currently claimed damages. The Court notes that Plaintiff
has almost certainly made binding judicial admissions that would
preclude it from re-asserting its abandoned damages theories.

Request for Production 7: Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce
Mullins’s laptop and other devices for inspection by Defendants. In
advance of the production, the parties shall stipulate to a process
for imaging/copying, shall stipulate to a clawback agreement for
privileged matters, and shall stipulate to a process for designating
proprietary information as “attorneys eyes only.” The parties shall
file this stipulation with Court as a “Supplemental Stipulated
Protective Order” on or before May 20, 2016. Defendants shall pay
the cost of any imaging/copying.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Subpoenas
(Docket No. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as
follows:
•

The motion is GRANTED insofar as discovery into the “California
Transactions” is hereby BARRED under Rule 26(c)(1)(D).
Defendants have failed to articulate any conceivable relevance.

•

The motion is DENIED as to quashing the five subpoenas at issue.
Plaintiff has sufficient standing to challenge the Salesforce.com
subpoena on privacy grounds under Rule 45(d)(3)(B)(i). Plaintiff
has not established standing as to the other four subpoenas. And
as to the Salesforce.com subpoena, the Court ruled supra that the
records are relevant to the case; thus, the Court will not quash the
subpoena. To accommodate Plaintiff’s privacy interests, it is
ORDERED that any and all documents received by the parties
pursuant to the Salesforce.com subpoena shall be deemed to be
designated “Confidential Information” pursuant to the Stipulated
Protective Order (Docket No. 35) in this case.
The Court notes that the Salesforce.com subpoena is likely unduly
burdensome under Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(iv) in light of the Court’s orders
compelling discovery supra, and further notes that all five
subpoenas might very well violate Defendants’ duties under Rule
45(d)(1) in light of their sweeping language. But such matters are
outside the scope of Plaintiff’s standing to challenge. See Windsor
v. Martindale, 175 F.R.D. 665 (D. Colo. 1997).

•

To the extent the motion seeks to limit the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
of Plaintiff’s corporate representative, the motion is both (1)
unsupported/speculative because no Rule 30(b)(6) notice was
provided for the Court to review, and (2) moot because the
deposition appears to have been conducted already
notwithstanding the automatic stay in D.C.COLO.LCivR 30.2(a).
The motion is therefore DENIED AS MOOT as to any such matters
not otherwise resolved by this Minute Order. Plaintiff may file a
new motion as to still-pending depositions if need be.

•

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Subpoena
Served on Mercedes-Benz Financial (Docket No. 55) is GRANTED and
the subpoena is QUASHED. Plaintiff has standing to challenge such
confidential commercial information under on privacy grounds under Rule
45(d)(3)(B)(i). And as the Court held supra, Defendants have failed to
establish any actual relevancy.

•

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants’ Supplements to
Discovery Motions (Docket No. 64) is GRANTED. The Court has taken
the parties’ filings at Docket Nos. 61, 62, 62-1, 64, 64-1, 64-2, 64-3, 64-4,
64-5, 64-6, and 66 into consideration.

Date: April 28, 2016