American Plastics, Inc. v. Bradley

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: On November 22, 2021 a motion hearing was held on movant Scot Young Research Inc.'s motion to quash, or alternatively, for protective order (Doc. 26 ). For the reasons set forth at the hearing and below, the motion is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT... SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 11/23/2021. (ANP) (Main Document 38 replaced on 11/23/2021) (ANP).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
AMERICAN PLASTICS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEPHEN BRADLEY,
Defendant.
***
SCOT YOUNG RESEARCH, INC.,
Movant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:21 CV 672 JMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On November 22, 2021 a motion hearing was held on movant Scot Young Research Inc.’s
motion to quash, or alternatively, for protective order (Doc. 26). For the reasons set forth at the
hearing and below, the motion is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.
On October 4, 2021, plaintiff served a subpoena upon non-party Scot Young seeking
various categories of documents related to its claim that defendant violated the Defend Trade
Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, by divulging trade secrets to Scot Young, his new employer, after
October 2, 2020. Scot Young appears to have received the subpoena on October 12, 2021 and
Plaintiff sought compliance with the subpoena by October 25. In its document request, plaintiff
seeks documents from January 2019 (4 months prior to when it had hired defendant) related to
defendant’s employment/communications with Scot Young, Scot Young’s business operations and
structure, defendant’s customers and communications, and Scot Young’s relationship to various
organizations/entities and in relation to a mop product. Scot Young objects, arguing in part that

Page 1 of 3

the requests are unduly burdensome, overbroad, and issued prior to the parties conducting
discovery.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party may obtain discovery of
non-privileged material that is relevant to a claim or defense and that is proportional to the needs
of the case. The Court may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can
be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.”
Id. Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Likewise, a party serving a subpoena issued to a third party “must take
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.”
Id. Rule 45(d)(1). To that end, the Court must quash or modify a subpoena that is unreasonable,
requires disclosure of privileged information, or subjects a third-party to undue burden. Id. Rule
45(d)(3)(A). The burden is on the party seeking to quash or modify the subpoena. United States
v. Corbett, 2008 WL 2095740, *1 (E.D. Mo. 2008).
In general, the information sought by plaintiff appears relevant to the claim that defendant
divulged trade secrets, including potential new customer information related to its mop product, to
his new (and former) employer, Scot Young. However, plaintiff did not first seek the discoverable
information from defendant, did not allow sufficient time for compliance with the subpoena, and
sought broad categories of information, some of which appears to be proprietary and/or privileged
or only tangentially related to actual claims in the case. While the court appreciates that the parties
attempted to revolve this dispute prior to seeking court intervention, additional negotiations are
warranted under the circumstances. To aid in further discussion, plaintiff is directed to wait for
discovery responses from defendant that may provide some of the information requested. See
Miscellaneous Docket Matter No. 1 v. Miscellaneous Docket Matter No. 2, 197 F.3d 922, 927 (8th
Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (“[C]oncern for the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a

Page 2 of 3

factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs.”); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(d)(1) (Parties should avoid imposing “undue burden or expense” on a person subject to
a subpoena.”). The court understands that the parties will be completing written discovery by the
end of December, 2021. Second, a number of requests, most notably ## 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 16, and
17 appear overbroad and should be narrowed. Third, the requests that seek proprietary or
privileged information (e.g. ## 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23) should be subject to a
protective order that the parties shall present to the court for approval.
If the parties and movant are unable to resolve this discovery dispute (with or without a
protective order), they are granted leave to supplement their motion and response by January 17,
2022. In doing so, the parties shall identify which specific requests are still in dispute and why
they are or are not discoverable. Thereafter, a hearing will be set if necessary.

/s/ John M. Bodenhausen
JOHN M. BODENHAUSEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this 23rd day of November, 2021

Page 3 of 3