Groeneveld Transport Efficiency, Inc. v. Lubecore International, Inc.

Filing 120

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 45 Lubecore's Motion to Quash. Lubecore's motion for protective order is granted. Judge Donald C. Nugent (C,KA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

GROENEVELD TRANSPORT
EFFICIENCY, INC.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
LUBECORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
)
Defendant.
)

CASE NO. 1:10 CV 702

JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant, Lubecore International, Inc.’s Motion for
Protective Order or to Quash or Modify Subpoenas filed on October 1, 2010 (Docket #45).
Lubecore moves the Court for a protective order or to quash subpoenas served upon three of
Lubecore’s customers, stating as follows:
The subpoenas - which serve no purpose other than to interfere with Lubecore’s
lawful business activities and harm its existing business relationships - make
unduly broad and burdensome demands and seek to obtain highly sensitive and
confidential business information that Lubecore has objected to producing in this
litigation.
Lubecore asserts that much of the information sought by Groeneveld from these third
parties is the same information already sought from Lubecore, “of which some of it has been or
will be produced” pursuant to a Confidentiality Agreement/Protective Order. Plaintiff,
Groeneveld Transport Efficiency, Inc., filed its Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion on October 1, 2010 (Docket #63), arguing that the subpoenas, served upon three
distributors of Lubecore products in the United States, are fully compliant with Fed. R. Civ. P.
45 and that Lubecore does not have standing to challenge the validity of the subpoenas, having

failed to demonstrate any personal right or privilege in relation to the documents sought.
Discussion
In an Order dated July 20, 2011, the Court denied Groeneveld’s Motion to Compel
Discovery from Lubecore (Docket #119), stating as follows:
The Court has reviewed the Parties’ Motions in detail and, based upon that
review, believes that a more detailed explanation of the discovery sought and the
basis upon which the information sought is discoverable is necessary. However,
given that Groeneveld indicated the additional discovery is not necessary to the
Court’s decision on its pending summary judgment motion, the Court hereby
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Document #99) at this time. Following
the Court’s decision as to the pending Motions for Summary Judgment,
Groeneveld may file a Motion to Compel, if necessary, subject to the instruction
that Groeneveld provide a more detailed analysis of the legal basis for each of its
discovery requests.
Likewise, it is unreasonable at this time to require third parties to produce discovery
when it is unnecessary to the disposition of Groeneveld’s pending Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Parties have yet to resolve their own discovery disputes as to the production of
information that Lubecore deems privileged and/or proprietary and, therefore, it is premature to
ask third parties to incur the burden and expense of producing information that may not be
discoverable or relevant to these proceedings.
Conclusion
Lubecore’s Motion to Quash is DENIED. Lubecore’s Motion for Protective Order is
GRANTED. Groeneveld shall notify the third parties subpoenaed by Groeneveld that said third
parties shall refrain from producing any discovery responsive to Groeneveld’s requests until such
time as the Court has ruled upon the pending motions for summary judgment and after resolution
of the discovery disputes between the named Parties to this lawsuit.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Donald C. Nugent
DONALD C. NUGENT
United States District Judge
DATED:

July 26, 2011

3