Target Interact US et al v. McBride

Filing 29

RULING AND ORDER denying 26 Motion to Quash. Defendant asks the court to quash a proposed subpoena seeking his account records from JP Morgan Chase Bank. Defendant argues that discovery into personal finances is generally disallowe d and that Plaintiffs are engaging in a fishing expedition. Plaintiffs argue that the financial information they seek will allow them to determine whether Defendant received payment from Plaintiffs clients, former clients, prospective clients, or re presentatives of the same. The court will deny Defendants motion. Plaintiffs may immediately serve the subpoena in the form included as an exhibit to their opposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/10/17. (jlw) Modified on 4/11/2017 by correcting event from Memorandum Decision to Ruling and Order(jlw).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
TARGET INTERACT US, et al.,
RULING & ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-01194-JNP-DBP
District Judge Jill N. Parrish

MICHAEL JARED McBRIDE,

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendant.

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (ECF No. 5.) The
matter is presently before the court on Defendant’s Short-Form “Motion Regarding Subpoena to
JP Morgan Chase Bank.” (ECF No. 26.)
II.

ANALYSIS

Defendant asks the court to quash a proposed subpoena seeking his account records from JP
Morgan Chase Bank. Defendant argues that discovery into personal finances is generally
disallowed and that Plaintiffs are engaging in a “fishing expedition.” (ECF No. 26.)
Plaintiffs argue that the financial information they seek will allow them to determine whether
Defendant received payment from Plaintiffs’ clients, former clients, prospective clients, or
representatives of the same. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiffs argue such information is potentially
relevant to their claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of non-circumvent and
non-competition agreements. After conferring with opposing counsel, Plaintiffs agreed to limit
the information sought to certain deposit information, excluding debits and account balances.
(Id., Ex. 1.) Plaintiffs also argue there is no blanket prohibition on financial discovery.

The court will deny Defendant’s motion. First, there is no blanket rule prohibiting discovery
of personal financial information. Defendant cites a case from the District of New Mexico to
support this argument. See Olivo v. Crawford Chevrolet, Inc., Civil No. 10-782, 2011 WL
13137327 (D.N.M. Aug. 29, 2011). Olivo only recognizes that the need for discovery of financial
records must be balanced against any relevant privacy interests and the needs of the case laid out
in Rule 26. See id. This unremarkable statement is true of any discovery sought. It is clear the
District of New Mexico was only speaking broadly because it cited cases dealing with privacy
interests applicable to birth control and military secrets. Thus, Defendant cites no rule that
disfavors financial discovery. Instead, discovery of such matters is governed by Rule 26.
Second, the discovery Plaintiffs seek here is relevant and proportional. Plaintiffs demand
production of deposit information for a narrow timeframe (September 1, 2016, through February
28, 2017) to determine whether their clients made payments to Defendant. This information is
relevant, nonprivileged, and proportional to the needs of this case. Plaintiffs will be allowed to
serve the proposed subpoena. (ECF No. 27, Ex. 1.)
III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES Defendant’s Short-Form “Motion Regarding
Subpoena to JP Morgan Chase Bank.” (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiffs may immediately serve the
subpoena in the form included as an exhibit to their opposition.
Dated this 10th day of April 2017.

By the Court:

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

2