Diamond Consortium, Inc., et al vs. Manookian, et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting in part 1 Motion to Transfer and Motion to Compel Third Party Production of Documents. The Clerk is directed to transfer this motion to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, and close this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 6/13/2017. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

In re: Enforcement of Subpoena to Produce
Documents in a Civil Action Served Upon
K.M.A. SUNBELT TRADING CO.,
D/B/A INTERNATIONAL DIAMOND
CENTER, and KEITH LECLERC.

Case No.: 8:17-mc-55-30AAS

_____________________________________/
ORDER
Before the Court is Movants’ Motion to Transfer and Motion to Compel Third Party
Production of Documents from Keith LeClerc and K.M.A. Sunbelt Trading Co. d/b/a International
Diamond Center (Doc. 1), and response thereto (Doc. 5).
I.

BACKGROUND
David Blank and The Diamond Consortium d/b/a The Diamond Doctor (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”), filed the underlying action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Sherman Division, against Brian Manookian, Brian Cummings, and
Cummings Manookian, PLC (collectively, “Movants”), claiming that Movants were involved
in a scheme of extortion. (See Case No. 4:16-cv-00094, Doc. 131). In support of that
allegation, Plaintiffs alleged that Movants engaged in this same scheme against third parties
Keith LeClerc and K.M.A. Sunbelt Trading Co. d/b/a International Diamond Center
(collectively, “Non-Movants”).

Movants served subpoenas upon Non-Movants seeking

documents pertaining to communications with Plaintiffs, as well as communications between
Non-Movants and certain third parties. (Doc. 1, Ex. B). Non-Movants provided a limited
production of documents, but asserted a common interest privilege as to certain documents. (Id.,
1

Ex. A). Movants contend that the common interest privilege is inapplicable.
Movants brought this motion to compel third party production of documents pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B)(i), seeking an order compelling the documents
referenced above. In addition, Movants request that the Court transfer this motion to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, where the underlying
action is pending.

Non-Movants filed a response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 5).

Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
II.

ANAYLSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a subpoena must issue from the court where the

action is pending. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2). However, challenges to a subpoena, including motions
to quash or modify a subpoena, are to be heard by the district court where compliance with the
subpoena is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). Additionally, if the court where compliance is
required did not issue the subpoena, then the court may transfer a subpoena-related motion to the
issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional
circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Exceptional circumstances include transferring a motion to
“avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation, as when the court
has already ruled on issues presented by the motion,” because transfer would promote consistent
outcomes and judicial economy. Edwards v. Maxwell, No. 16-61262-MC-GOODMAN, 2016 WL
7413505, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2016) (finding exceptional circumstances existed to transfer
motion).
Here, the court where compliance is required is the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The issuing court is the United States District Court
2

for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. The Eastern District of Texas is also the court
overseeing the underlying litigation. The underlying complaint in this action is 50 pages, and the
record contains 248 filings to date. (See Case No. 4:16-cv-00094, Doc. 131). Because the
underlying litigation has been extensive, the Eastern District has intimate knowledge of the
underlying litigation, parties, facts, and prior rulings.
In addition, the current deadline for filing motions in limine and the Joint Pretrial Statement
is June 21, 2017. (Case No. 4:16-cv-00094, Doc. 248). Jury instructions are due by July 7, 2017.
(Id.). The trial term is scheduled from August 14, 2017 to September 1, 2017. (Case No. 4:16cv-00094, Doc. 129). Considering these impending deadlines as well as the trial schedule, transfer
is warranted to “avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation.” See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) advisory committee’s note to 2013, see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., No.
8:16-mc-47-T-17JSS, 2016 WL 3021911, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 26, 2016) (where parties consented
to transfer but court also found transfer warranted to “avoid disrupting the issuing court’s
management of the underlying litigation”).
In contrast, although Non-Movants are physically located in Florida, the Eastern District
of Texas has conducted telephonic hearings in this matter, which would permit Non-Movants to
participate without great burden from Florida. In addition, the documents sought could likely be
produced electronically. Indeed, according to Movant, Non-Movants have already produced
documents electronically.
In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that transferring the instant motion (Doc. 1)
would promote consistent rulings and avoid undermining the presiding judge’s management of the
underlying litigation.

Considering these exceptional circumstances and the limited burden

imposed on Non-Movants, transfer of this action to the Eastern District of Texas is appropriate.
3

III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly and upon consideration, it is ORDERED that:
Movants’ Motion to Transfer and Motion to Compel Third Party Production of Documents

from Keith LeClerc and K.M.A. Sunbelt Trading Co. d/b/a International Diamond Center (Doc. 1)
be GRANTED in part. The Clerk is directed to transfer this motion (Doc. 1) to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, and close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 13th day of June, 2017.

4