Louisma v. Automated Financial, LLC et al

Filing 54

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Young B. Kim on November 1, 2011: Defendant Automated Financial, LLC's motion to quash 44 is denied. Status hearing scheduled for November 8, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. to stand. [For further details see minute order.] Mailed notice(ntf, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

CASE NUMBER
CASE
TITLE

Sharon Johnson Coleman
11 C 2104

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

Young B. Kim
November 1, 2011

Louisma vs. Automated Financial, LLC et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendant Automated Financial, LLC's motion to quash [44] is denied. Status hearing scheduled for November
8, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. to stand.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Mail notices.
*Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

STATEMENT
On September 21, 2011, Plaintiff issued a subpoena requesting Triton Systems of Delaware, LLC ("TSD") to
produce certain documents for inspection and copying. (R. 44, Def.'s Mot. Ex. A.) According to Defendant
Automated Financial, LLC ("AFL"), AFL "does business with" TSD. (R. 44, Def.'s Mot. at 2.) The document
rider attached to the TSD subpoena described five categories of documents:
1. Produce for inspection and copying all "originals" of any "Triton ATM Cash Dispenser Installation/Warranty Registration" forms or "ATM Registration Forms" sent to you by your customer known
as "AFLLC" "Automated Financial" or "Automated Financial, L.L.C." regarding ATMS installed or
registered during the months of April 2009 through May 2009.
2. Produce for inspection and copying all "originals" or any other correspondence, e-mails, documents
or other material sent to you from "AFLLC" "Automated Financial" or "Automated Financial, L.L.C."
which relate to the ATMS which were the subject of your response to the first category of document.
3. Produce for inspection and copying all "originals" (including its original electronic format) of any
correspondence, e-mails, documents or other material relating to ATMs with the Terminal Numbers: 81936399,
81936400, 81936401, and 81936402.
4. Produce for inspection and copying all "originals" (including its original electronic format) of any
correspondence, e-mails, documents or other material relating to ATMs with the UNIT Serial Numbers:
LRL2315090910810, LRL2315090920864, LRL2315090920900, and LRL 2315090910801.
5. Produce for inspection and copying all "originals" (including its original electronic format) of any
correspondence, e-mails, documents or other material relating to ATMs with the MECHANISM Serial Numbers:
11C2104 Louisma vs. Automated Financial, LLC et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
1008541, 1153985, and 1008546.
(R. 44, Def.'s Mot. Ex. A) (emphasis in original). On October 4, 2011, AFL moved to quash this subpoena
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A)(iii). According to this rule, the court must "quash or
modify a subpoena that . . . requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies[.]" (Id.) In response to the motion, Plaintiff offered to limit the scope of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the
document rider in exchange for AFL withdrawing the motion. (R. 50, Pl.'s Resp. at 1-2.) AFL did not agree to
the offer of modification and as such the scope of the TSD subpoena remains unchanged. On October 21, 2011,
Plaintiff filed her response opposing the motion, arguing--among other things--that AFL lacks standing to
challenge the TSD subpoena. AFL filed its reply on October 27, 2011.
AFL's motion to quash the TSD subpoena is denied because AFL failed to meet its burden to show that it is
entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A)(iii). See WM High Yield v. O'Hanlon, 460
F.Supp.2d 891, 895 (S.D. Ind. 2006) (the burden of persuasion in a motion to quash a subpoena is borne by the
movant). In its motion, AFL generally avers that "the information requested by the plaintiff contains certain
proprietary business information including, but not limited to, the 1) type; 2) cost; and 3) functionality of . . .
ATMs." (R. 44, Def.'s Mot. at 2.) AFL did not describe the "proprietary business information" in more detail
in its motion or at the motion hearing held on October 13, 2011, when Plaintiff challenged the notion that the
documents she seeks are privileged or proprietary. In its reply, AFL argues: "[w]hile it is true that movant only
generally described the privileged and proprietary information which the subpoena improperly seeks as
information concerning the type of ATMs, cost of the ATMs, and functionality of the ATMs, movant stands on
its position that although such description is general and not detailed, the description, nevertheless, is sufficient
in terms of describing what privileged and proprietary information movant submits should not be disclosed
pursuant to the subpoena." (R. 53, Def.'s Reply at 3.)
The court agrees with Plaintiff that AFL failed to show that it has standing to challenge the TSD subpoena. See
Wilson v. O'Brien, 07 CV 3994, 2010 WL 1418401, *2 (N.D. Ill. April 6, 2010) ("the general rule stated by
Wright and Miller [that only the recipient of a subpoena has standing to move to quash] is subject to exception
if the subpoena infringes upon the legitimate interests of a movant whether or not that movant is the recipient
of the subpoena.") (citing United States v. Raineri, 670 F.2d 702, 712 (7th Cir. 1982)). Plaintiff opposed the
motion at the hearing on the basis that AFL lacked standing to challenge the subpoena. The court also
commented to the parties at the hearing that it was interested in learning more about the standing issue. However,
AFL did nothing more than repeat its general description of the proprietary nature of the information requested
by Plaintiff without any details. AFL did not even identify the documents or type of documents it seeks to protect
through its motion. A general assertion of privilege or protection is not enough to quash a subpoena in toto. The
court must conduct a particularized analysis as to whether the specific documents sought by the subpoena at issue
are privileged or protected. Stopka v. Alliance of Am. Insurers, No. 95 CV 7487, 1996 WL 204324, *6 (N.D. Ill.
April 25, 1996) ("general application of the privilege to quash subpoenas is inappropriate.") Only through such
analysis would the court be able to decide whether exceptions and waivers apply and whether the court may
modify the subpoena to balance the competing interests of the parties. Id. at 12. Notably, TSD did not raise any
objections to the scope of the subpoena or weigh in on the issue of whether it would be required to reveal
proprietary information it agreed to protect. (R. 50, Pl.'s Resp. at 2 n.2.) Based on the foregoing, AFL's motion
to quash is denied.

11C2104 Louisma vs. Automated Financial, LLC et al.

Page 2 of 2