Shefts v. Petrakis

Filing 140

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 133 Motion for Reconsideration. It is GRANTED to the extent that the Court herein reconsidered its original opinion. It is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to quash and/or modify the April 26, 2011 Subpoena to Produce Documents issued to John Tandeski. (Doc. 133-1). IT IS SO ORDERED. Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 5/4/11. (SM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 04 May, 2011 10:27:11 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
JAMISON J. SHEFTS, an individual

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN PETRAKIS, an individual,
KEVIN MORGAN, an individual,
and HEIDI HUFFMAN, an individual,
Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-1104

ORDER & OPINION
Before the Court is John Tandeski’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s denial of his Motion to Quash (Doc. 133). The Court initially denied
Tandeski’s Motion to Quash (Doc. 132) because the subpoena submitted by
Tandeski in connection with that Motion only commanded Tandeski to be
present at an Evidentiary Hearing held on May 2, 2011. (Text Order of 4/29/11).
Tandeski has since supplied the Court with the actual subpoena he wishes to
quash (“April 26, 2011 Subpoena to Produce Documents”) (Doc. 133-1), and
therefore asks the Court to reconsider its ruling. For the following reasons,
Tandeski’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. It is granted to the extent that the Court will herein reconsider its ruling
on its original Motion to Quash with the proper subpoena before it. It is denied
to the extent that it seeks any further relief.

1

DISCUSSION
On May 6, 2010, Judge Mihm entered an Agreed Order for Preliminary
Injunction in this matter. (Doc. 37). Paragraph 9 of the Preliminary Injunction
provides that “[b]oth parties may immediately issue subpoenas to any person
and/or entity regarding this case.” (Doc. 37 at 4). Pursuant to that provision and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, on April 26, 2011, Defendants issued a
Subpoena to Produce Documents to John Tandeski, a non-party and former
business partner of both Plaintiff and Defendants. Although he is not a party,
Tandeski has a unique relationship to this case, as information he disclosed to
Plaintiff about Defendants’ monitoring of his e-mails and text messages appears
to have led to its inception. (See Doc. 38 ¶¶ 24-32). In their April 26, 2011
Subpoena to Produce Documents, Defendants seek numerous types of documents
from Tandeski. These documents include: 1) any and all communications related
to this case sent to or received from Plaintiff, his attorneys, James Feehan, or
anyone else associated therewith, after September 1, 2008; 2) any and all
electronic records obtained by Tandeski by accessing the e-mail accounts of
Plaintiff or Defendants Petrakis and Morgan; 3) any communications between
Defendants Petrakis and Morgan which Tandeski obtained after they had
already been initially transmitted; 4) any documents or electronic records
containing

information

regarding

meetings

or

communications

between

Tandeski and Plaintiff or his attorneys after September 1, 2008; 5) phone

2

records of calls or text messages made between Tandeski and Plaintiff or his
attorneys after September 1, 2008; and 6) recordings of all voicemails received by
Tandeski from Plaintiff or his attorneys after September 1, 2008. (Doc. 133-1).
Many of these document requests are similar to those made in a
previously issued subpoena to Tandeski, which was made in connection with
Defendants’ Motion to Remedy Unauthorized Disclosure of Attorney-Client
Privileged Communications (Doc. 86).1 The Court struck several of the requests
in that subpoena as unduly burdensome. (Doc. 109). Notably, however, the
subpoena issued to Tandeski at that time was to be limited to the issue of
whether Tandeski supplied Plaintiff with attorney-client privileged information.
(Doc. 114 at 23). Here, no such limitation exists. Moreover, in order to avoid
forcing Tandeski to produce documents twice, Defendants have included in their
April 26, 2011 Subpoena to Produce Documents a provision stating that “Mr,
Tandeski need not provide those documents and electronically stored
information previously produced to Defendants.” (Doc. 133-1 at 5).
Due to Tandeski’s central role in this case, the authorization of the
Preliminary Injunction, and the fact that Defendants do not require Tandeski to
produce documents that he has already delivered, the Court does not find that
the April 26, 2011 Subpoena to Produce Documents is unduly burdensome.
Accordingly, the Court will again deny Tandeski’s Motion to Quash.

The Court ruled upon that Motion at the Evidentiary Hearing of May 2, 2011,
and it is no longer pending.
1

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Tandeski’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s Denial of his Motion to Quash is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.

It is GRANTED to the extent that the Court herein reconsidered its

original opinion.

It is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to quash and/or

modify the April 26, 2011 Subpoena to Produce Documents issued to John
Tandeski. (Doc. 133-1). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Entered this 4th day of May, 2011.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge

4