Angel Learning, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company

Filing 6

ORDER - the defendant's 1 Motion to Quash is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe on 4/8/10. (mnm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ ANGEL LEARNING, INC., Plaintiff, v. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT PUBLISHING COMPANY, Defendant. ________________________________________ APPEARANCES: BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff One North Wacker Drive Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60606 BUSINESS LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant 400 Blue Hill Drive, Suite 2 Westwood, MA 02090 OF COUNSEL: GERALD O. SWEENEY, JR., ESQ. 6:10-MC-0014 (DNH/GHL)

IRWIN B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ.

GEORGE H. LOWE, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER Litigation between these parties is pending in the Southern District of Indiana. Dkt. No 1-2, at 1. 1 In connection with that litigation Plaintiff ANGEL Learning, Inc., caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served upon Bank of America in Utica, New York. Dkt. No. 1-1, at 11-17. Defendant Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company moved in this Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and 45(c), for an order quashing the subpoena. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Dkt. No. 5.
1

The page references in this Order are those assigned by the electronic filing electronic.

The burden here is upon Defendant. 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2463.1 (3d ed. 2008). Bank of America apparently has asserted no objections to the subpoena. The Court will assume arguendo that Defendant has standing to make this motion. Defendant argues that the documents Plaintiff seeks pursuant to the subpoena are irrelevant to any claim or defense pending in the Indiana litigation. However, Defendant acknowledges the "broad scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)". Dkt. No. 1-1, at 5. Given this broad scope, the Court would find the requested documents relevant even apart from Defendant's counterclaim for unjust enrichment. With respect to the counterclaim, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the requested documents are "directly relevant to [Defendant's] claim for unjust enrichment and [Plaintiff's] defense of unclean hands". Dkt. No. 5, at 6. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that Defendant's motion to quash (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED.

Dated: April 8, 2010 Syracuse, New York

2