Connectus LLC v. Ampush Media, Inc. et al
Filing
30
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 1/27/2017. (LBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CONNECTUS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 8:16-mc-00159-VMC-JSS
AMPUSH MEDIA, INC. and DGS EDU,
LLC,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Non-Party Digital Globe Services, Inc.’s (“Digital”)
Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and Motion for Protective Order (“Motion”) (Dkt. 1),
and Plaintiff’s response in opposition (Dkt. 8). A hearing was held on the Motion before the
undersigned on January 24, 2017, at which the Court heard the oral arguments of counsel. For the
reasons stated at the hearing and as follows, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Courts maintain great discretion to regulate discovery. Patterson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 901
F.2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990). Through discovery, parties may obtain materials that are within
the scope of discovery, meaning they are nonprivileged, relevant to any party’s claim or defense,
and “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Courts consider the following
factors when evaluating whether requested discovery is proportional to the needs of the case: (1)
“the importance of the issues at stake in the action,” (2) “the amount in controversy,” (3) “the
parties’ relative access to relevant information,” (4) “the parties’ resources,” (5) “the importance
of the discovery in resolving the issues,” and (6) “whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id.
A court must quash or modify a subpoena that “requires disclosure of privileged or other
protected matter” or “subjects a party to undue burden” and may quash or modify a subpoena if it
requires “disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii)–(iv), (B)(i). A court may issue a protective order
for “good cause” to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense” by, among other things, “forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or
limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff issued a subpoena duces tecum and a subpoena to testify at a deposition on Digital
(Dkt. 1-3), seeking discovery related to Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Ampush Media, Inc.
(“Ampush”), and DGS EDU, LLC (“DGS”), case number 8:15-cv-02778-VMC-JSS (“Main
Case”). Digital is not a party to the Main Case, but is a parent company of DGS. (Dkt. 8 at 2.)
The subpoenas seek discovery regarding the following subjects: “all communications
relating to” Plaintiff, the Main Case, contracts with the Defendants in the Main Case, and
“exposure under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act”; “all” financial records relating to DGS
and Digital’s parent company, who is also not a party to the Main Case; “all communications”
relating to DGS’s acquisition of Ampush’s educational business unit; “all documents and
communications” relating to Digital’s control over DGS’s management and activities; and “all
documents and communications” relating to Digital’s relationship to its parent company. (Dkt. 13.)
In the Motion, Digital argues that the subpoenas’ requests are “extremely broad and unduly
burdensome” and seek discovery neither relevant to nor proportional to the parties’ claims and
defenses in the Main Case. (Dkt. 1 at 3.) Further, the subpoenas seek “sensitive confidential and
-2-
privileged information,” including Digital’s financial information and proprietary business
records. (Dkt. 1 at 3.)
In response, Plaintiff contends that Digital has information relevant to the Main Case that
Plaintiff cannot obtain from DGS. (Dkt. 8 at 2, 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Digital
possesses financial records of DGS that could contain information relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for
unjust enrichment. (Dkt. 8 at 5.) Plaintiff also argues that it is entitled to discovery to determine
whether Digital and DGS are “legitimately [ ] separate entit[ies].” (Dkt. 8 at 5–6.) In particular,
Plaintiff seeks a contract between DGS and a Pakistani entity, that Plaintiff claims Digital
possesses, that could contain information regarding sums DGS obtained for educational leads
allegedly stolen from Plaintiff. (Dkt. 8 at 6–7.)
With the exception of two areas of inquiry, the Court agrees with Digital that the subpoenas
are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and do not seek relevant information. As Digital is not a
party to the Main Case and Plaintiff has made no allegations pertaining to Digital, wide-sweeping
requests for all of Digital’s financial records, documents, and communications regarding Digital’s
control over DGS, communications regarding DGS’s acquisition of Ampush, Digital’s
communications with and documents relating to another non-party are not relevant to the parties’
claims and defenses in the Main Case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Further, Digital’s burden in
producing such discovery outweighs any likely benefit of its production, and a protective order is
warranted to protect Digital from this undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 45(d)(3)(A)(iv).
Plaintiff’s requests for discovery from Digital relating to the Main Case and “the storage,
acquisition, use and sale of lead-related information obtained from Plaintiff” (Dkt. 1-3), on the
other hand, are targeted to the issues of the Main Case and not overly broad.
-3-
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Dkt. 1), is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. The Motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum to
Digital (Dkt. 1-3) as follows: paragraphs 1(a), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), and 2 through 5 of the “Requests for
Production” contained in Attachment A (“RFP List”) to the subpoena duces tecum are stricken.
The Motion is denied as to paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of the RFP List. Digital’s responses to the
subpoena duces tecum as modified shall be served on Plaintiff by February 14, 2017. The Motion
is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s subpoena to testify at a deposition to Digital (Dkt. 1-3) as
follows: paragraphs 1(a), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), and 2 through 7 of the “Deposition Topics” contained in
Attachment B (“Topics”) to the subpoena to testify are stricken. The Motion is denied as to
paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of the Topics. The deposition of Digital’s representative must be
completed by February 28, 2017.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 27, 2017.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
-4-
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?