American Home Assurance Company et al v. Greater Omaha Packing Company Inc.

Filing 96

ORDER - The motion for enlargement of time is granted to the extent that defendant shall have until February 25, 2013, to add parties or claims. All other deadlines in the progression order (Filing No. 75 ) remain in full force and effect. Plaintiff's objection to the non-party subpoena on Gas Weber Mulling, Inc. is overruled. Defendant's motion for leave to file a non-party subpoena is granted. Defendant's motion for a hearing is denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY and CARGILL MEAT
SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
GREATER OMAHA PACKING COMPANY,)
INC.
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:11CV270

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant Great
Omaha Packing Company, Inc.’s (“GOPAC”) motion for enlargement of
time to add parties and claims (Filing No. 88), and plaintiff
Cargill’s response (Filing No. 94) and the index of evidence in
support of its response (Filing No. 95).

The Court finds the

motion should be granted in part.
In addition, GOPAC seeks a subpoena for non-party Gass
Weber Mullin, Inc. -- a law firm that represented Cargill.

In

accord with Rule 45.1 of the Nebraska Civil Rules, Cargill served
a written objection to the subpoena.

The motion under

consideration is GOPAC’s request for a ruling on the objection
and for a hearing (Filing No. 85).

The Court finds the motion

should be granted without a hearing.
Cargill recognizes the case law indicating that it does
not have standing to object to a non-party subpoena on the basis
of undue burden, cost, or inconvenience.

See Peter Kiewit Sons',

Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., No. 8:10CV365, 2011 WL
5075720, at *8 (D. Neb. Oct. 25, 2011); Streck, Inc. v. Research
& Diagnostic Sys., Inc., No. 8:06CV458, 2009 WL 1562851, at *3
(D. Neb. June 1, 2009).

However, Cargill does have an

independent interest in the files held by its attorney related to
work carried out on the company’s behalf.

Such an interest

constitutes a basis for standing to object on the grounds of
privilege, relevance, or to the extent it places a significant
burden on the party.

Id.; Mawhiney v. Warren Distribution, Inc.,

2007 WL 433349 at *1, No. 8:05CV466 (D. Neb., Feb. 7, 2007),
aff’d, 283 Fed. Appx. 424, No. 07-2753 (8th Cir., July 10, 2008).
Cargill argues that the requests on Gass Weber are
“unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from
some other source that is more convenient” and must be limited
under Federal Rule of Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(i).

These are

precisely the kind of burden-weighing objections that an opposing
party is prohibited from making on behalf of a non-party.
Cargill does not make any objections deriving from its personal
stake in the requested materials and has withdrawn its privilege
objections upon the assurances of the defendant that GOPAC is not
seeking privileged information at this time.

-2-

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
1) The motion for enlargement of time is granted to the
extent that defendant shall have until February 25, 2013, to add
parties or claims.
2) All other deadlines in the progression order (Filing
No. 75) remain in full force and effect.
3) Plaintiff’s objection to the non-party subpoena on
Gas Weber Mulling, Inc. is overruled.

Defendant’s motion for

leave to file a non-party subpoena is granted.
4) Defendant’s motion for a hearing is denied as moot.
DATED this 17th day of January, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
_____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-