Bowen v. Groome et al

Filing 54

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 51 Motion to Quash, construed as a Motion for Protective Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Plaintiff SHALL immediately provide a copy of the attached order to the subpoenaed third parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 1/17/2012. (jls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES BOWEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM E. GROOME and VICKI L.
GROOME,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11−cv–0139–GPM−SCW

ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Four non-parties have been served with subpoenas to produce ten years’ worth of “[a]ny and
all documents” related to Defendants William and Vicki Groome and three other individuals. At a
telephonic conference on January 6, 2012, the parties, who had in good faith conferred to resolve
the dispute without court action, were directed to brief the Court on the discoverability of the
information covered by the subpoenas. Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Quash
Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas, which the Court construes as a Motion for a Protective Order under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
Under Rule 26(c), a protective order may be entered for good cause in order to limit the
scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1)(D). The scope of
discovery in federal court is limited to non-privileged, relevant material. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b).
While the information sought by Plaintiffs is relevant to the case insofar as it pertains to possible
punitive damages, the subpoena is overbroad. So to make the scope of the disputed subpoenas
congruent with the scope of discoverable information, the Court GRANTS IN PART and
DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion, and rules as follows.

The subpoenaed third parties (Citation Oil & Gas Corp.; Plains Marketing, L.P.; Bi-Petro,
Inc.; and Countrymark Refining and Logistics, LLC/Countrymark Cooperative, LLP/Countrymark
Cooperative Holding Corp.) SHALL comply with the subpoenas to the extent they are commanded
to produce (1) only documents related to William E. Groome and Vicki L. Groome, and (2) only
documents dated within the last two years, and (3) only documents pertaining to ownership interest
of and payments made to Defendants William and Vicki Groome, including all royalty check detail
statements, division orders or any other documents evidencing payment to Defendants or
Defendants’ ownership in any royalty interest or working interest. Plaintiff SHALL immediately
provide a copy of this order to the subpoenaed third parties. Further, documents responsive to this
order SHALL NOT be provided to anyone except counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants, until the
parties agree (or the Court orders) otherwise.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2012
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge