Doe 1 et al v. Baylor University

Filing 597

ORDER GRANTING #328 Motion to Compel. No later than March 15, 2019, Pepper Hamilton is ORDERED to either (1) complete production in response to the subpoena and file a notice with this Court certifying that production to Plaintiffs is complete, or (2) file a motion with this Court detailing any objections to production and requesting specific relief. Additionally, the Court ADVISES all parties to avoid speculating about opposing counsels motivations, and instead brief the Court with factual information and specific requested relief. The Court REMINDS the parties that a proposed order shall be filed with all nondispositive motions. W.D. Tex. Loc. R. CV-7(g). The Court will strike any non-dispositive motion filed after this date without an attached proposed order. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (tb) Modified on 3/7/2019 to correct docket text (jg3).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
JANE DOE 1, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

6:16-CV-173-RP
Consolidated with
6:17-CV-228-RP
6:17-CV-236-RP

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel non-party Pepper Hamilton LLP (“Pepper
Hamilton”) to produce all materials requested by Plaintiffs in the subpoena duces tecum issued to
Pepper Hamilton on March 24, 2017. (Mot., Dkt. 328). Defendant Baylor University (“Baylor”) filed
a response, although Pepper Hamilton did not. (Resp., Dkt. 332). Plaintiffs filed a Reply. (Reply,
Dkt. 333). Having considered the parties’ submissions, the record, and the governing law, the Court
enters the following order.
I. DISCUSSION
Rule 45(c)(2)(A) provides that “[a] subpoena may command . . . 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) (emphasis
added).
Baylor argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the motion to compel because
Pepper Hamilton is headquartered in Pennsylvania. (Resp., Dkt. 332, at 1). Plaintiffs argue that
Pepper Hamilton regularly transacts business in person in the Western District of Texas because at
least two firm partners “worked regularly for months in Waco, Texas,” and the firm “was
purportedly still doing work in Waco through its partners” at the time Plaintiffs issued the subpoena.
1

(Mot., Dkt. 328, at 10). Baylor asserts that Pepper Hamilton “resides” in Pennsylvania but does not
dispute that the firm was also regularly transacting business in the Western District of Texas at the
time of the subpoena. (See Resp., Dkt. 332, at 1). Pepper Hamilton itself has not filed any
submission with the Court disputing the Court’s jurisdiction.
If Pepper Hamilton objects to production of any specific documents, or any objections on
jurisdictional grounds, Pepper Hamilton must file a motion with this Court detailing those
objections no later than March 15, 2019. Absent such a motion, Pepper Hamilton shall file a notice
with this Court certifying that production to Plaintiffs is complete no later than March 15, 2019.
To be clear, the Court advises the parties that other than the redactions and omissions
approved by the Court for FERPA-protected materials, Pepper Hamilton may not withhold any
other materials based on FERPA objections. (See Dkts. 296, 298, 355, 356, 357, 358, 361, 362, 376,
377, 584, 585). Pepper Hamilton may confer with counsel for Baylor as needed for a complete list of
approved redactions and omissions. Additionally, the Court’s prior orders addressing attorney–client
privilege and work product privilege for Pepper Hamilton materials, and the scope of discovery in
this litigation, also apply to production by Pepper Hamilton itself. (See Dkts. 168, 565, 569, 582).
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Pepper Hamilton LLP to produce all materials
requested by Plaintiffs in the subpoena duces tecum issued to Pepper Hamilton on March 24, 2017,
(Dkt. 328), is GRANTED.
No later than March 15, 2019, Pepper Hamilton is ORDERED to either (1) complete
production in response to the subpoena and file a notice with this Court certifying that production
to Plaintiffs is complete, or (2) file a motion with this Court detailing any objections to production
and requesting specific relief. The Court will not consider objections that have already been
addressed by this Court’s prior orders.
2

Additionally, the Court ADVISES all parties to avoid speculating about opposing counsel’s
motivations, and instead brief the Court with factual information and specific requested relief.
The Court REMINDS the parties that a proposed order shall be filed with all nondispositive motions. W.D. Tex. Loc. R. CV-7(g). The Court will strike any non-dispositive motion
filed after this date without an attached proposed order.
SIGNED on March 7, 2019.

_____________________________________
ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3