Carter v H2R Restaurant Holdings LLC et al
Filing
263
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 224 MOTION to Enforce Subpoena. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 8/30/2017) (mcrd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SAMANTHA CARTER,
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
V.
§
§
H2R RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, LLC, §
ET AL.,
§
§
Defendants.
§
No. 3:16-cv-1554-N-BN
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge for pretrial
management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from United
States District Judge David C. Godbey. See Dkt. No. 102.
Plaintiff Samantha Carter filed a Motion to Enforce Subpoena against Travelers
Lloyd Insurance Company (“Travelers”), a non-party who insures one or more
defendants. See Dkt. No. 224. At the Court’s direction, see Dkt. No. 226, Travelers filed
a response, see Dkt. No. 238, and Ms. Carter filed a reply, see Dkt. No. 239.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Samantha Carter’s
Motion to Enforce Subpoena [Dkt. No. 224].
Background
Ms. Carter issued a subpoena to Travelers in which she appears to seek
“[s]ettlement offers and/or [r]esolution [a]ttempts through corresponden[ce] made to
Samantha Carter on Cause 3:16 CV 1554 N BN with claim number EVG5521 for
Travelers Lloyd Insurance Company, Fireman’s Fund claim 00512018200 and North
American Claim number EP 12000368.” See Dkt. No. 227, Ex. A.
She contends that Travelers only sent her one non-responsive document and
subsequently filed a Motion to Enforce Subpoena to compel it to fully respond. See Dkt.
No. 224 at 1-2.
Travelers responds by noting that Ms. Carter’s request, as written, only “seeks
documents, electronically stored information and objects regarding ‘Settlement Offers
and/or Resolution Attempts through correspondence made to Samantha Carter on
Cause No.3:16 CV 1554 BN with claim number EVG5221 for Travelers Lloyd (sic)
Insurance Company.’” Id. at 2-3. And it contends that it has fully responded to this
request by producing the one responsive document on the matter. This document
appears to discuss settlement negotiations between Ms. Carter and a defendant that
Travelers insures. See Dkt. No. 238, Ex. B.
In her reply, Ms. Carter reiterates that this document is not responsive. She
then refers the Court to Nationwide E&S/Specialty’s (“Nationwide”) response to the
exact same request as one example of how she believes Travelers could and should
have responded.
Nationwide responded by stating that “[it] has not made any formal offers of
settlement or resolution. As such, Nationwide does not have any documents responsive
to the above-referenced subpoena.” Dkt. No. 239, Ex. 11.
By referring to Nationwide’s response to her request, Ms. Carter appears to
suggest that Travelers should have responded by clearly stating whether or not it has
formally offered her a settlement.
2
Legal Standards
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a party may serve a subpoena
commanding a nonparty “to whom it is directed to ... produce designated documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person’s possession,
custody, or control.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii).
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 ‘explicitly contemplates the use of subpoenas
in relation to non-parties’ and governs subpoenas served on a third party ... as well as
motions to quash or modify or to compel compliance with such a subpoena.” Am. Fed’n
of Musicians of the U.S. & Canada v. SKODAM Films, LLC, 313 F.R.D. 39, 42 (N.D.
Tex. 2015) (quoting Isenberg v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 661 F. Supp. 2d 627, 629 (N.D.
Tex. 2009)).
Under Rule 45, “[a] subpoena may command: (A) production of documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of
where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2)(A); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(1)(C) (“A command to produce
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or to permit the
inspection of premises ... may be set out in a separate subpoena.”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 governs requests for production of documents
and electronically stored information from a party and explains that, “[a]s provided in
Rule 45, a nonparty may be compelled to produce documents and tangible things or to
permit an inspection.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(c). And Rule 34 provides that a document
request “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to
3
be inspected” or produced, FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(1)(A), and, although Rule 34 governs
document discovery from a party and not a non-party, see FED. R. CIV. P. 34(c), this
reasonable particularity requirement should apply with no less force to a subpoena’s
document requests to a non-party, see generally Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,
392 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2004).
Under Rule 45(c)(2), “[a] subpoena may command: (A) production of documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of
where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(2); see
also FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(1)(C) (“A command to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things or to permit the inspection of premises ... may
be set out in a separate subpoena.”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(A)
provides that “[a] person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not
appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to
appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2)(A).
Discussion
Ms. Carter appears to contend that Travelers failed to respond to her request
because it has not affirmatively stated whether it offered her a settlement offer – in the
manner that Nationwide did in responding to an identical subpoena that Ms. Carter
served to it. See Dkt. No. 239 at 3.
The Court disagrees. Ms. Carter issued a subpoena that called on Travelers to
4
produce “documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material” that pertain to “Settlement
offers and/or Resolution Attempts.” See Dkt. No. 227 (placing a check mark next to
“Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set
forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects ...”)
(emphasis in original). Ms. Carter did not ask Travelers to admit whether or not they
made her a settlement offer.
To fully respond to her request, Travelers is therefore only required to produce
such “documents, electronically stored information, or objects” relating to “[s]ettlement
offers and/or [r]esolution [a]ttempts” to the extent those things exist and are in its
possession, custody, or control.
Travelers explains that it produced the one document that it believes to be
responsive to Ms. Carter’s request. It also proffers a declaration that explains that this
was the only responsive document that it located after combing “the entire physical
and electronic file materials relating to the instant lawsuit with claim number
EVG5521.” Dkt. No. 238, Ex. A.
Travelers cannot produce additional material responsive to Ms. Carter’s request
that it does not appear to have, and the Court has no basis to compel Travelers to do
so. See ORIX USA Corp. v. Armentrout, No. 3:16-mc-63-N-BN, 2016 WL 4095603, at
*5 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2016) (“[A] non-party cannot produce what it does not have. And,
so, [c]learly, the court cannot compel [a ... non-party] to produce non-existent
documents.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Reeves v. Wells Fargo
5
Bank, NA, No. EP-14-cv-187-DCG, 2014 WL 12493288, at *5 (W.D. Tex. April 29, 2014)
(finding that “the nonparties are not required to produce documents not in their
possession, custody, or control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii).”).
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Samantha Carter’s
Motion to Enforce Subpoena [Dkt. No. 224].
SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 30, 2017
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?