Global Oil Tools, Inc. v. Barnhill et al
Filing
113
ORDER granting 46 Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (clm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GLOBAL OIL TOOLS, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 12-1507
WILFRED J BARNHILL, ET AL.
SECTION: “J” (4)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants, Wilfred J. Barnhill, (“Wilfred”), Brian A. Barnhill, (“Brian”)
Diane Barnhill, (“Diane”) and Barnhill Industries, Inc.’s, (collectively, the “Barnhills”) Motion to
Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum (R. Doc. 46), seeking an order quashing the subpoena propounded
by Global Oil on third parties, AT&T Corp., (“AT&T”) and Yahoo!, Inc., (“Yahoo!”) seeking
production of certain financial and business records from Wilfred, Diane, Brian, and Barnhill
Industries, Inc. The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 63). The motion was heard by oral argument on
October 3, 2012.
I.
Background
This is a suit brought under The Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (18
U.S.C. § 1962) (“RICO”), the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (“Lanham Act”), as well as Louisiana
law. (R. Doc. 1, p. 1). Global Oil alleges that it manufactures wireline tools and downhole flow
control systems for the oil and gas industry. In 2007, Grifco sold Global Oil to Lyamec Corporation
(“Lyamec.”), and Wilfred, then the President of Global Oil, allegedly put in a request for additional
administrative staff, and hired his wife, Diane, for the role. Id at 5. He then allegedly hired his son,
Brian, to be Global Oil’s Vice President, Financial Officer, and Treasurer, at which point Brian
became responsible for all financial reporting, payroll, purchasing, tracking physical inventory,
signing checks, signing of corporate tax returns, hiring, and marketing. Id.
According to the complaint, after several years of declining profits, Wilfred and Diane
resigned on January 11, 2012, and Brian resigned on February 22, 2012. Id. at 6-7. Around this
time, other Global Oil employees began to inform the new management about widespread corrupt
and fraudulent behavior of the defendants. Id. at 6. Global Oil alleges that it began an investigation
which later revealed that the Barnhills: (1) established competing companies, (2) unlawfully offered
discounts to entities owned by Wilfred, (3) stole business opportunities and customers, (4) used
Global Oil’s funds to pay competing businesses’ expenses, and (5) stole Global Oil’s labor,
inventory, tools, and intellectual property. See id. at pp. 7-22.
On August 3, 2012 counsel for Global Oil issued a subpoena to Yahoo!, seeking production
of all emails to or from email addresses and ginttools@yahoo.com. On August 23, 2012, counsel
for Global Oil issued a subpoena to AT&T, seeking production of all emails from the
wirelinetools@att.net address, regardless of whether they were archived, deleted, or active.
Additionally the request sought all documents pertaining to or relating to the formation, creation or
opening of the wirelinetools@att.net email address.
II.
Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain
discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Rule
2
26(b)(1). The Rule specifies that “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The
discovery rules are accorded a broad and liberal treatment to achieve their purpose of adequately
informing litigants in civil trials. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 176 (1979). Nevertheless,
discovery does have “ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437
U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)). Furthermore, “it is
well established that the scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Coleman v. American Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091, 1096 (6th Cir.1994).
Under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), discovery may be limited if: (1) the discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from another, more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive source; (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity
to obtain the discovery sought; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs
its likely benefit. Id. In assessing whether the burden of the discovery outweighs its benefit, a court
must consider: (1) the needs of the case; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ resources;
(4) the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and (5) the importance of the proposed
discovery in resolving the issues. Id. at 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
Under Rule 45, “[a] party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must
take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena.” Id. At 45(c)(1). A motion for a subpoena must be quashed or modified where, inter
alia, the subpoena “(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply . . .(iii) requires disclosure of
privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to
undue burden.” Rule 45(c)(3)(A). A court may, in lieu of the above, “order appearance or
3
production under specified conditions if the serving party (I) shows a substantial need for the
testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and (ii) ensures that the
subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.” Id. at 45(c)(3)(C).
III.
Analysis
The Barnhills contend that Global Oil’s subpoenas are overly broad and improperly request
confidential and irrelevant records of a competitor. The Barnhills contend that these subpoenas are
an attempt to obtain a competitive advantage over its competitor by gaining access to Barnhill
Industries’ confidential business information. The Barnhills contend that Global Oil has not made
an attempt to tailor its requests to avoid unnecessary disclosure as the subpoenas are not limited by
date or subject matter.
Global Oil in response contends that the Barnhills’ motion is untimely and that their
argument regarding the meritless nature of the subpoena is incorrect. Global Oil contends that the
subpoenas are specific and sufficiently limited in time and scope and seek relevant information.
Finally, Global Oil contends that it has a substantial need for the documents, and as such the motion
to quash should be denied.
Under Rule 45(c)(3)(A), a party must object to a subpoena withing fourteen days of its
service. Id. “However, in certain circumstances, and for good cause, the failure of a nonparty to
act timely will not bar consideration of objections to a Rule 45 subpoena.” Piazza’s Seafood World,
L.L.C. v. Odom, 2011 WL 3664437, at *3 (M.D. La. Aug. 19, 2011). Such circumstances include
those where a subpoena is overbroad on its face. Id. Moreover, Courts which deem untimely
objections to be waived have subsequently limited the scope of the subpoena when the original
request would pose an undue burden on the responding party. See Duplantier v. Bisso Marine Co.,
4
Inc., No. 09-8066, 2011 WL 2600995, at *3 (E.D. La. June 30, 2011) (Roby, M.J.) (finding that
unduly burdensome request could be limited based on consideration of parties’ positions at oral
argument).
Courts in this district have struck subpoenas as overly broad when the dates of information
requested in those subpoenas fall outside the relevant period of a suit. See Southern United States
Trade Ass’n v. Guddh, 2012 WL 5199706, at *4-*5 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2012) (Roby, M.J.) (striking
subpoena for, inter alia, phone records as overbroad where subpoena requested records from January
1, 2008, and allegations in suit dated to April 28, 2010, because “there was no that the subpoenas
directed towards Guddh were tailored to Plaintiffs’ claims in the instant suit.”).
In considering the subpoenas, the court finds that they are both overly broad. According to
the argument of Global Oil, the problem began in 2008 and yet the subpoena is non restrictive.
Global mistakenly does not attempt to limit the scope of the AT&T subpoena solely because it
believes that the alleged fraud and unlawful competition is continuous and therefore the subpoena
should be open ended. It suggests that only the defendants have knowledge of the length of time this
email address has be operational.
Global Oil further suggests that the Yahoo! subpoena is limited to essentially a two year
period because the companies name was not registered until May 2010. However, there is no such
time limit referenced in the subpoena. The Court finds that they are overly broad. The Court
therefore finds that the Motion to Quash the subpoenas propounded by Global Oil on third parties
Yahoo! and AT&T, seeking production of financial and business records from Wilfred, Diane,
Brian, and Barnhill Industries, Inc., is GRANTED.
5
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants, Wilfred J. Barnhill, (“Wilfred”), Brian A. Barnhill,
(“Brian”) Diane Barnhill, (“Diane”) and Barnhill Industries, Inc.’s, (collectively, the “Barnhills”)
Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum (R. Doc. 46) is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of November 2012.
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
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?