McDonald Apiary, LLC v. Starrh Bees, Inc., et al

Filing 140

ORDER: Plaintiff's objection to Defendants' proposed subpoena of records from the First National Bank of Gordon, (Filing No. 131 ), is sustained in part and overruled in part. Plaintiff shall fully comply with the court's prior discovery order, (Filing No. 120 ), by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on July 7, 2016.Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MCDONALD APIARY, LLC, a Nebraska
Limited Liability Company;
8:14CV351
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

STARRH BEES, INC., a California
Corporation; DALE ASHLEY, ANNE
ASHLEY, AND JONATHAN
GONZALEZ,
Defendants.
After conferring with counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record, (Filing No.
139),

IT IS ORDERED:

A.

Plaintiff’s objection to Defendants’ proposed subpoena of records from the

First National Bank of Gordon, (Filing No. 131), is sustained in part and overruled in part
as follows:

1)

Plaintiff’s objection to subpoenaing the bank records of Ed and/or Susan
McDonald, personally, is sustained.

2)

As to McDonald Apiary, LLC, the relevant time frame of any records
subpoenaed from the bank is limited to August 1, 2014 through June 30,
2015.

3)

Defendants’ proposed subpoena is limited to production of documents, for
the relevant time frame, stating:

a)
b)

the amount owed on those dates;

c)

the amount of any payment made;

d)

when the payment was made;

e)

whether any loan payments were deemed late by the bank;

f)

the date those late payments were made;

g)

whether any late fees were assessed and the amount of those fees;
and

h)

4)

the date when loan payments were owed by McDonald Apiary LLC;

any communications between the bank and McDonald Apiary LLC
regarding accelerating a loan or a desire or need to renegotiate
McDonald Apiary LLC’s loans or their terms because of Plaintiff’s
inability to timely service the existing loan(s) during the relevant
time frame.

Absent further order of the court, any documents produced by the bank in
response to Defendants’ subpoena, and any information within those
documents, shall be subject to an Attorneys Eyes Only protective order;
that is, reviewed by only defense counsel and not communicated or
provided to, examined by, or discussed with the defendants.

B.

Plaintiff shall fully comply with the court’s prior discovery order, (Filing

No. 120), by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on July 7, 2016.

July 6, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge

2