Fulford et al v. Climbtek, Inc.

Filing 115

ORDER granting 96 Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects Issued by Plaintiffs On or About 6/7/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 9/22/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARVIN FULFORD, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-16-BAJ-EWD

CLIMBTEK, INC., ET AL.

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Produce Documents, Information, or
Objects Issued by Plaintiffs On or About June 7, 2017 (the “Motion”), filed by defendant Michigan
Ladder Company, LLC (“Michigan Ladder”).1 The Motion is opposed.2 For the reasons that
follow, the Motion to Quash is GRANTED.
In the Motion, Michigan Ladder moves to quash the subpoenas duces tecum issued by
Marvin and Rena Fulford (“Plaintiffs”) to several insurance companies3 on the grounds that the
subpoenas were issued after the deadline for discovery on the issue of jurisdiction.4 Plaintiffs
assert that the subpoenas were issued in response to the Ruling and Order issued by Chief Judge
Brian A. Jackson on January 19, 2017,5 denying without prejudice Michigan Ladder’s Motion to
Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(2).6 In the Ruling and Order, Chief Judge Jackson found that the Court
lacked “sufficient information regarding the nature of the relationship between Climbtek and

1

R. Doc. 96.
R. Doc. 110.
3
See, R. Doc. 96-2.
4
By Order dated November 18, 2016, the undersigned granted Plaintiffs an extension until January 1, 2017 to conduct
limited discovery with regard to the relationship between Michigan Ladder and defendant Climbtek. R. Doc. 37. See
also, R. Doc. 23.
5
R. Doc. 60.
6
R. Doc. 25.
2

Michigan to adequately rule on Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.”7
As such, the Motion to Dismiss was denied without prejudice to Michigan Ladder re-filing the
motion with supplemental allegations and evidence relative to the relationship between Climbtek
and Michigan Ladder by February 3, 2017.8 In opposition to the Motion to Quash, Plaintiffs assert
“that is precisely why the subpoenas were issued,” explaining that, “Plaintiffs are simply seeking
to provide this Court with all pertinent and relevant information relating to Michigan’s pending
12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss.”9 Plaintiffs claim that the subpoenas were issued to determine
whether Michigan Ladder and Climbtek were listed on the same insurance policies, asserting that,
“This crucial information will further support plaintiffs’ allegations of Successor Liability, Single
Business Enterprise and Alter Ego theories of liability.”10
In accordance with Chief Judge Jackson’s Ruling and Order, Michigan Ladder filed a
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(2) on February 3, 2017, asserting that the Court
lacks personal subject matter jurisdiction over Michigan Ladder.11 On September 21, 2017, Chief
Judge Jackson issued a Ruling and Order denying the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, concluding
that “Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction” over Michigan
Ladder.12
In light of Chief Judge Jackson’s September 21, 2017 Ruling and Order, to the extent that
the subpoenas at issue in the Motion to Quash were issued to obtain information to establish the
Court’s personal jurisdiction over Michigan Ladder, that issue has now been decided by the Court
favorably to Plaintiffs. Additionally, to the extent that the subpoenas were issued to obtain

7

R. Doc. 60 at p. 3.
Id. at p. 4.
9
R. Doc. 110 at p. 2.
10
Id. at p. 2.
11
R. Doc. 61.
12
R. Doc. 113.
8

2

information to “further support plaintiffs’ allegations of Successor Liability, Single Business
Enterprise and Alter Ego theories of liability,” Plaintiffs must seek that information in accordance
with the discovery rules set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which state that, “A party
may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule
26(f), except . . . when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(d)(1). Now that the Motion to Dismiss has been decided, a Scheduling Conference Order
has been issued requiring the parties to confer as required by Rule 26(f).13 Nothing in the instant
Order precludes Plaintiffs from seeking the requested information in the normal course of
discovery in this case.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Produce Documents,
Information, or Objects Issued by Plaintiffs On or About June 7, 2017,14 filed by defendant
Michigan Ladder Company, LLC is GRANTED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 22, 2017.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14

R. Doc. 114.
R. Doc. 96.
3