Edge-Works Manufacturing Company v. HSG, LLC

Filing 100

ORDER denying 95 MOTION OF NONPARTY to Quash Subpoena, or in the Alternative, for Protective Order and denying 97 MOTION OF NON PARTY to Quash Subpoena, or in the Alternative, for Protective Order - Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 9/24/2019. (Tripp, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:17-CV-00223-FL
Edge-Works Manufacturing Company,
Plaintiff,
v.

Order

HSG, LLC, et al.
Defendants.

Nonparties Albert Gene Higdon, Jr. and Kristopher DiMauro seek orders quashing
subpoenas served by Defendant HSG, LLC requiring them to provide deposition testimony. Mots.
of Nonparty to Quash Subpoena, or in the Alternative, for Protective Order, D.E. 95, 97. In the
alternative, they ask the court to enter a protective order limiting the scope of the depositions. Id.
After review, the court finds that Higdon and DiMauro may have knowledge relevant to the parties’
claims or defenses and thus declines to quash the subpoenas or issue a protective order.
The parties are embroiled in a patent infringement lawsuit. Plaintiff Edge-Works
Manufacturing Company designs, manufactures, and sells tactical gear, including holsters and
firearm magazine carriers. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 8, D.E. 70. Edge-Works owns U.S. Patent No.
9,668,568 (the “‘568 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,795,210 (the “‘210 patent”), a continuation
of the ‘568 Patent. Id. at ¶ 9–11.
The ‘568 and ‘210 Patents cover an expandable firearm magazine carrier that allows a user
to place varied compression on the magazine using a binding device woven through a series of
channels. Id. at ¶ 12. These patents include Edge-Works’ Hardshell Scorpion products, injection

molded expandable magazine pouches launched in 2014. Decl. of Albert Gene Higdon, Jr., Mem.
in Supp. Ex. 4, at 1–2, D.E. 96–4.
HSG also makes, sells, and manufactures tactical gear. Answer to Second Am. Compl. ¶
13, D.E. 75. Since its founding, HSG has manufactured and sold a nylon TACO product, a fabric
compression magazine pouch. Higdon Decl. at 1. In 2017, HSG began selling Polymer TACO
products, the Kydex Handcuff TACO, and the Kydex Tourniquet TACO, variations of the original
TACO. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 13, 25. Edge-Works alleges that these HSG products infringe its
‘568 and ‘210 Patents. Id. at ¶ 32–38.
HSG served subpoenas on Higdon and DiMauro requiring them to appear for a deposition.
Subpoenas Issued to Gene Higdon and Kristopher Dimauro, D.E. 96–2, 98–2. Higdon founded
HSG, Inc., predecessor to Defendant HSG, LLC, and served as its Chief Executive Officer until
2012. Higdon Decl. at 1–2. While CEO, he and Edge-Works owner Scott Evans collaborated to
co-invent HSG’s original nylon TACO product. Resp. to Mot. in Supp. at 2, D.E. 99. After selling
his company, Higdon worked as a design consultant for HSG, LLC through 2013. Higdon Decl.
at 1. DiMauro worked as HSG’s Sales and Marketing Director from 2009–2011. Decl. of
Kristopher DiMauro at 1–2, D.E. 98–4. Higdon and DiMauro claim they have no personal
knowledge of any matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense because they both stopped
working for HSG before 2014, when Edge-Works filed its patent application which matured into
the patents-in-suit. See Mots. of Nonparty to Quash.
Under the Federal Rules, parties may obtain discovery on “any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1). When applying the discovery rules, courts should give them “a broad and liberal
treatment to effect their purpose of adequately informing the litigants in civil trials.” Herbert v.

2

Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979). But court retains the authority to limit the “frequency or extent
of discovery” if “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be
obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
The question before the court is whether it should quash the subpoenas or otherwise limit
Higdon and DiMauro’s depositions. To resolve this question, a court must balance the relevance
of the information sought, the need to obtain information from the deponent, confidentiality
concerns, and the resulting harm to any party. Insulate Am. v. Masco Corp., 227 F.R.D. 427, 432
(W.D.N.C. 2005); see also Voit Techs., LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-259-BO, 2019 WL
3423468, at *2 (E.D.N.C. July 29, 2019).
In response to the motions to quash, HSG has identified these topics as relevant to the
parties’ claims or defenses: (1) Higdon and DiMauro may know about pre-2012 kydex TACO
prototypes and discussions about the same that may be prior art; (2) Higdon and DiMauro are
familiar with the growth, popularity, and commercial success of the TACO, relevant to creating
later derivatives of the product; and (3) Higdon and DiMauro can explain the relationship between
HSG, Inc., HSG, LLC, and G-Code. Resp. to Mots. to Quash at 3–4.
The court agrees that these topics are relevant and thus within the scope of discovery.
Higdon, DiMauro, and Edge-Works owner Scott Evans have a long-time personal and professional
relationship and often collaborated before Higdon sold the company. Id. at 2–3. Before leaving
HSG in 2012, DiMauro made a kydex TACO prototype on which Higdon may have collaborated.
Both Higdon and DiMauro worked at HSG at this time and would know about any discussions
about a kydex TACO prototype. Whether HSG developed a kydex TACO protype in 2012 is
directly relevant to the claim that HSG infringed on Edge-Works’ patents when it developed the

3

Kydex Handcuff and Tourniquet TACOs in 2017. Thus the information sought goes to HSG’s
affirmative defense of invalidity based on prior art. Answer to Second Am. Compl. at 6, D.E. 75.
This falls clearly within the scope of Rule 26. See Brown v. Pope, No. 3:08–14, 2013 WL
12158596, at *1 (D.S.C. July 18, 2013) (holding that because the party moving to quash a subpoena
“failed to show that it is certain that he lacks knowledge of any facts which may be relevant” to
the claims at issue, the non-moving party had a right to depose him).
HSG needs to depose Higdon and DiMauro, despite being nonparties, to determine the full
scope of the inventions mentioned in any collaborative discussions between HSG and EdgeWorks. Higdon and DiMauro can contribute more to a deposition than merely their status as former
employees. As HSG notes, “no one at HSG was privy to Mr. DiMauro’s conversations with Mr.
Higdon or Mr. Evans” and “HSG has no way of knowing the full scope of any inventions disclosed
in [Higdon and DiMauro]’s collaborations with Mr. Evans without taking [their] depositions.”
Resp. to Mots. to Quash at 6. Because whether these collaborations included the development of
a kydex TACO is relevant to HSG’s defense and it cannot obtain the information from another
source, HSG needs to question both Higdon and DiMauro.
The parties identify no confidentiality issues that would arise from allowing Higdon and
DiMauro’s depositions to proceed. The court notes that a protective order allows the parties to
limit access to confidential materials produced in discovery. See Protective Order, D.E. 67.
And as to harm, the only basis for harm Higdon identifies is that HSG has already sued
him twice in the last four years. Higdon Mot. to Quash at 2, D.E. 95. But Higdon has not shown
that he will face any significant prejudice from disclosing the information HSG seeks now.
DiMauro also identifies no impending harm. Thus the court finds that deposing DiMauro or
Higdon does not create any potential for harm.

4

The court also finds that subjecting Higdon and DiMauro to a deposition is not an “undue
burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). When information requested from a nonparty “offer[s]
some value over and above what the requesting party already has” and the requesting party can
“explain why it cannot obtain the same information, or comparable information … from one of the
parties to the litigation,” it is not unduly burdensome. Va. Dep’t of Corr. v. Jordan, 921 F.3d 180,
189 (4th Cir. 2019), petition for cert filed, Aug. 22, 2019; see also Spring v. Bd. of Trs. of Cape
Fear Cmty. Coll., No. 7:15-CV-84-BO, 2016 WL 4204153 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2016).
HSG has established that Higdon and DiMauro are the most likely individuals to have the
information HSG seeks. See Resp. to Mots. to Quash at 3 (“[N]o person friendly to HSG was privy
to the communications between the Witnesses and Mr. Evans. Thus, the HSG Parties need to take
the Witnesses’ depositions to understand the full scope of the inventions disclosed in any kydex
TACO collaborative discussions.”); id. at 6 (“HSG has no way of knowing the full scope of any
inventions disclosed in the Witnesses’ collaborations with Mr. Evans without taking the
Witnesses’ depositions.”). As discussed, this information is important to HSG’s defense. HSG also
made clear that it has no intention of dragging out these depositions. See Correspondence
Memorializing the Conference at 4, D.E. 96–3. Because responding to the subpoenas is not unduly
burdensome—and because the court expects the parties act reasonably and in good faith when
conducting discovery—the court need not issue a protective order on the scope of the deposition.
For these reasons, Higdon’s and DiMauro’s Motion to Quash (D.E. 95, 97) are denied.
Dated: September 24, 2019
______________________________________
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
Robert S Numbers, II
UNITEDT.TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
United States Magistrate Judge

5