Premier Harvest et al v. AXIS Surplus Insurance Company et al

Filing 92

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant Axis Surplus Insurance Company's 70 Motion to Compel Non-Party Golden Harvest Alaska Seafood LLC to Comply with Subpoena. Golden Harvest is ORDERED to provide responsive documents pursuant to the subpoena, as narrowed, no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

PREMIER HARVEST LLC, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C17-0784-JCC

AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

13
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Axis Surplus Insurance Company’s
motion for the Court to order Golden Harvest Alaska Seafood LLC (“Golden Harvest”), to
comply fully with Defendant’s subpoena duces tecum (Dkt. No. 70). Having thoroughly
considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES
in part Defendant’s motion for the reasons explained herein.
The Court has described the underlying facts of this case in previous orders and will not
repeat them here. (See Dkt. Nos. 43, 50, 58). Golden Harvest allegedly operates a crab and fish
processing business using a building and equipment previously used by Plaintiff that Plaintiff
alleges was damaged in Plaintiff’s 2015 and 2016 loss events. (Dkt. No. 73 at 9.) Defendant
served a subpoena on Golden Harvest to produce documents relating to this property. (Dkt. No.
73-2 at 36.) Following discussions with Golden Harvest, Defendant agreed to limit the scope of

ORDER
C17-0784-JCC
PAGE - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

the subpoena to the following:
1) all documents concerning the transfer of the “blue shed” property at Adak,
Alaska, including any equipment, fixtures or supplies, Pier 5 and habitational units,
from Premier Harvest to Golden Harvest; 2) all documents describing or depicting
the condition of the property or its fitness to operate as a seafood processing
facility; 3) all correspondence and records concerning damage to the real property
and equipment in the “blue shed” that was caused by the weather events of
December 2015 and January 2016; and 4) all estimates, bids, construction or
purchase contracts concerning the repair, replacement, or renovation of the Adak
property undertaken by Golden Harvest from the time it took possession of the
property to when it began full fin fish processing operations.

8

(Dkt. No. 73-2 at 123.) Defendant asserts Golden Harvest agreed to produce responsive

9

documents, but has failed to do so in a complete and timely manner. (Dkt. Nos. 70 at 4, 86 at 2–

10

3.) Defendant seeks an order compelling compliance with the subpoena, as modified, and

11

without allowance for any objections or assertions of privilege or protection, other than those

12

asserted in Golden Harvest’s February 21, 2018 letter. (Id.); (see Dkt. No. 73-2 at 117).

13

Absent undue burden or cost, or claims of privilege or protection, a person served with a

14

subpoena duces tecum for documents and electronically stored information must produce that

15

information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e). If the recipient fails to do so, or to timely object, the party

16

serving the subpoena may seek an order to compel the recipient to produce the documents or to

17

furnish for inspection the files containing the documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). A person

18

who fails to comply with a court order to produce documents may be held in contempt. Fed. R.

19

Civ. P. 45(f); Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 1983).

20

Defendant’s subpoena, as narrowed, is reasonable. However, Defendant has failed to

21

make a sufficient showing that waiver of Golden Harvest’s objections, privileges, and

22

protections is warranted. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of

23

Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and

24

DENIES in part Defendant’s motion. (Dkt. No. 70). Golden Harvest is ORDERED to provide

25

responsive documents pursuant to the subpoena, as narrowed, no later than twenty-one (21) days

26

from the date of this order. Any objections, privileges, or protections Golden Harvest seeks to
ORDER
C17-0784-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

assert relating to those documents must be made in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 45(e)(2), and are not limited to the objections asserted in its February 21, 2018 letter.

3

DATED this 3rd day of April 2018.

A

4
5
6

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-0784-JCC
PAGE - 3