Republic National Distributing Company, LLC v. Johnson Brothers Liquor Company

Filing 33

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on 4/5/2024. (Written Opinion) (ALM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Republic National Distributing
Company, LLC,

Case No. 24-mc-0008 (JFD)

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Johnson Brothers Liquor Company,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Republic National Distributing Company, LLC’s
Motion to Compel Discovery from Johnson Brothers Liquor Company (Dkt. No. 1). The
motion is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth below.
I.

Background
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, Republic National Distributing

Company, LLC (“RNDC”) moves to compel Johnson Brothers Liquor Company (“Johnson
Brothers”) to produce documents in response to a subpoena duces tecum served on June
14, 2023. RNDC intends to use the documents in a case pending in the Western District of
Kentucky: Sazerac Co., Inc. v. Republic National Distributing Co., LLC, No. 3:23-CV-25GNS. RNDC is the defendant in the Sazerac case; Johnson Brothers is not a party to the
Sazerac case. The Sazerac case arose from Sazerac’s termination of RNDC as an alcohol
distributor and Sazerac’s replacement of RNDC with several other distributors, including
Johnson Brothers.

1

This miscellaneous action was opened when RNDC filed its motion to compel.
Seven categories of documents are at issue in the motion:
1. Documents related to Sazerac’s establishment of a distributor-supplier relationship
with Johnson Brothers in any former RNDC state, including draft agreements,
negotiations, and electronic correspondence, relating to terms or potential terms of
a relationship between Sazerac and Johnson Brothers between January 1, 2022
through February 1, 2023 (Request Nos. 1, 2, and 3);
2. Documents related to Sazerac’s products ordered by Johnson Brothers from January
1, 2022 through the present, including information by product, volume, state to
which the products were delivered, order date, delivery date, and the processes
through which the products were ordered, delivered, or received by Johnson
Brothers (Request Nos. 4 and 5);
3. Documents related to Sazerac’s and Johnson Brothers’ communications regarding
RNDC’s relationship with Sazerac, RNDC’s distribution of Sazerac products, or the
Sazerac litigation from January 1, 2022 through the present (Request Nos. 6 and 9);
4. Documents related to the potential or actual purchase or transition of Sazerac
products from Johnson Brothers since June 1, 2022 through the present (Request
No. 7);
5. Documents and communications related to Sazerac’s termination of RNDC in any
state or territory since June 1, 2022 (Request No. 8);
6. Documents regarding Sazerac’s programs for market development managers and
market development representatives (Request No. 10); and
7. Documents identifying costs or handling fees paid by Johnson Brothers in
connection with transition of inventory for the last five years (Request No. 11).
(See RNDC’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel at 7, Dkt. No. 3.) RNDC has narrowed these
categories further to include only documents relating to Sazerac’s relationship with RNDC,
any supplier-distributor relationship with Sazerac, and the Sazerac lawsuit. RNDC has also
requested production of these documents directly from Sazerac in the Sazerac case and has
filed a motion to compel the documents.

2

II.

Legal Standards
A subpoena issued under Rule 45 may command a person “to produce designated

documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person’s
possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). “The scope of discovery
for a Rule 45 subpoena is the same as the scope of discovery under Rules 34 and 26 and is
subject to the same constraints on relevance and proportionality.” In re Pork Antitrust
Litig., No. 18-CV-1776 (JRT/HB), 2022 WL 972401, at *7 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2022).
“Pursuant to a subpoena, a non-party can be compelled to produce evidence regarding any
matter relevant to the claim or defense of any party, unless a privilege applies.” Keefe v.
City of Minneapolis, No. 9-CV-2941 (DSD/SER), 2012 WL 7766299, at *3 (D. Minn. May
25, 2012). That said, a party “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden
or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). “Concern for the
burden on a non-party subject to a subpoena carries special weight when balancing
competing needs.” In re Pork Antitrust Litig., 2022 WL 972401, at *7.
III.

Discussion
There are two kinds of documents at issue: (1) documents that are in Sazerac’s

possession and (2) documents that are not. The motion is denied as to the first category
because RNDC has already requested those documents directly from Sazerac and moved
to compel them in the underlying action. The Sazerac court is in the best position to assess
relevance, proportionality, burden, and other relevant factors, and that court will either
compel the documents, in which case RNDC will receive them, or will not compel them,

3

for reasons this Court would be loath to second-guess. Thus, the motion to compel is denied
as to responsive documents that are also in Sazerac’s possession.
As to documents solely in Johnson Brothers’ possession, the motion is granted as to
documents responsive to Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. The Court finds that these
documents are relevant and proportional to the needs of the Sazerac case and would not be
unduly burdensome to produce. Request Nos. 8 and 10 seek documents so specific to
Sazerac that they are not likely in Johnson Brothers’ possession, custody, or control; the
requests are also overbroad. Request No. 11, which is specific to Johnson Brothers, is
overbroad, and any tangential relevance is outweighed by undue burden.
United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses reached a similar result on a similar
motion in Republic National Distributing Co., LLC v. Breakthru Beverage Group, LLC,
No. 24-mc-27 (LAK) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2024). 1 Consistency across federal district
courts in different judicial districts is another reason for resolving this motion as the
undersigned does. Although Magistrate Judge Moses’ order differs slightly with respect to
the specific subpoena requests, this Court will adopt by reference the parameters for next
steps.
RNDC and Breakthru must promptly meet and confer over appropriate search terms
or “string-type search terms” (as RNDC’s counsel described them at the hearing), and the
number and identity of custodians. This Court will instruct the Clerk’s Office not to close
this case so that any future disputes related to this motion can be addressed by this Court.

1

RNDC provided this case as supplemental authority after the hearing. (See Dkt. No. 29.)
4

Accordingly, based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Republic National Distributing Company, LLC’s Motion to
Compel Discovery from Johnson Brothers Liquor Company (Dkt. No. 1) is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth fully above.

Date: April 5, 2024

s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge

5