Tuna Family Mgmt. v. All Tr. Mgmt.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER OR TO QUASH NON-PARTY SUBPOENAS

SHANIEK M. MAYNARD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before me upon Defendants' Motion for Protective Order or to Quash Non-Party Subpoenas (“Motion for Protective Order”). (DE 89).^[1] I have reviewed the Motion, the response (“Response”) (DE 90), and the record in this case. Being otherwise duly advised, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons stated herein.

BACKGROUND

The parties' disputes arise from Plaintiffs' sale of a restaurant business to Defendants in November 2018. DE 83 at ¶¶13-18, 38-44, 53-54. Plaintiffs initially brought this action on January 16, 2020. DE 1. On March 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their ten-count Third Amended

1

Complaint, seeking among other things, damages and injunctive relief due to Defendants' alleged breach of a license agreement. DE 83. See also Tuna Fam. Mgmt Inc. v. All Trust Mgmt. Inc., 2021 WL 4775076, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2021). For their part, Defendants seek damages and other relief for fifteen (15) counterclaims against Plaintiffs alleging, among other things, that: (1) Plaintiffs misrepresented the financial performance of the restaurant and fraudulently induced Defendants to purchase it; (2) Plaintiffs themselves have violated the licensing agreement; and (3) Plaintiffs have interfered with Defendants' business relationships. DE 84 at 31-79.

Defendants filed their Motion for Protective Order on April 23, 2021 requesting the Court to limit the non-party subpoenas at issue to non-duplicative requests for non-confidential information or quash the non-party subpoenas. DE 89. Defendants also seek reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in pursuing the motion. Id. Plaintiffs respond that the subpoenas seek information relevant to the dispute, and Defendants' objections lack merit. DE 90.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a party may issue subpoenas to nonparties to produce documents and information. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1)(C). Typically, parties may not move to quash subpoenas due to a lack of standing; however, courts have permitted a party to file such a motion when they allege a “personal right or privilege with respect to the materials subpoenaed.” Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979)^[2]; see also Maxwell v. Health Ctr. of Lake City, Inc., No. 3:05CV1056-J-32MCR, 2006 WL 1627020, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (“Ordinarily a party does not have standing to quash a subpoena served on a third party unless the

2

party seeks to quash based on a personal right or privilege relating to the documents being sought.”).

The scope of discovery under a Rule 45 subpoena is the same as that afforded under Rule 26. Barrington v. Mortg. IT, Inc., No. 07-61304-CIV, 2007 WL 4370647, at *3 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (finding that the Court “must determine whether the subpoenas duces tecum at issue seek irrelevant information and/or are overly broad under the same standards set forth in Rule 26(b) and as applied to Rule 34 requests for production”) (citations omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides in pertinent part that:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26 further provides that a Court may issue for good cause a protective order, including “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be...