Marathon Petroleum Company, LP v. Future Fuels of America, LLC et al

Filing 91

ORDER of Clarification entered re 82 Motion to Clarify. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon. (Miles, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY
LP, a Delaware limited partnership

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
)
Magistrate Judge: Mark A. Randon
v.
)
)
Civil Action No.: 2:10-cv-14068
FUTURE FUELS OF AMERICA, LLC, a
)
Michigan limited liability company;
)
HAKIM FAKHOURY also known as
)
ABDELHAKEEM FAKHOURY, an individual;
)
and OASIS OIL, LLC, a Michigan limited liability )
company,
)
Defendants.
)
)
And
)
)
OASIS OIL, LLC, a Michigan limited liability
)
company,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NIDAL ZRIEK, an individual, and MONROE
)
GAS & MART, INC., a Michigan Corporation,
)
)
Third-Party Defendant.
)
——————————————————————————————————————
ORDER OF CLARIFICATION GRANTING MARATHON PETROLEUM
COMPANY LP’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’
THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS (DKT. NOS. 54, 82)
Defendant Future Fuels of America, LLC (“Future Fuels”) asks this Court to clarify its
Order regarding the third-party subpoenas Future Fuel issued to several of Plaintiff Marathon
Petroleum Company LP’s (“Marathon”) suppliers. (Dkt. No. 82).

On July 27, 2011, Marathon moved to quash Future Fuels’ third-party subpoenas (Dkt.
No. 54). The Order at issue was entered on October 24, 2011 (Dkt. No. 73). The Order left open
for resolution certain issues based on Judge Patrick Duggan’s anticipated ruling on Plaintiff’s
motion to dismiss Future Fuels’ Counter-complaint and for partial judgment on the pleadings
with respect to Marathon’s claims. On January 24, 2012, following Judge Duggan’s Opinion and
Order granting the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and granting in part the motion
to dismiss (Dkt. No. 80), this Magistrate Judge conducted a telephone conference with the parties
and is now clarifies its Order as follows:
(1) the documents sought in the subpoena are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence in light of Judge Duggan’s Opinion and Order dismissing
all but Counts III and IV of Future Fuels’ Counter-complaint. The surviving counts relate to
whether Marathon provided proper notice to terminate its franchise relationship with Future
Fuels under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. The documents sought in the subpoena have
no conceivable bearing on this notice issue.1 Accordingly,

1

Marathon can challenge the third-party subpoenas. “Ordinarily a party has no standing
to seek to quash a subpoena issued to someone who is not a party to the action unless the party
claims some personal right or privilege with regard to the documents sought.” Mann v.
University of Cincinnati, 114 F.3d 1188 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Charles Alan Wright and
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2459 (1995)). Future Fuel’s third-party
subpoenas seek documents from Marathon’s suppliers. Because the documents sought contain
information related to Marathon’s internal operations (product sales, distributions, pricing and
margins) and could be used to its competitors advantage in the marketplace, Marathon has
standing. See AGV Sports Group, Inc. v. Protus IP Solutions, Inc., No. 08-3388, 2010 WL
1529195 (D. Md. April 15, 2010) (defendant had standing to challenge subpoena against
nonparty because it sought production of internal documents related to defendant's employees,
operations, and technology).

IT IS ORDERED that Marathon’s motion to quash Future Fuels’ third-party subpoenas
is GRANTED. The subpoenas at issue are QUASHED.

s/Mark A. Randon
Mark A. Randon
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: January 24, 2012
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the parties of record on this date,
January 24, 2012, electronically.
s/Melody R. Miles
Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon
[phone]

GR_DOCS 1762175v1