Andra Group, LP v. JDA Software Group, Inc.
312 F.R.D. 444
N.D. Tex.2015Background
- JDA served a Rule 45 third‑party subpoena on projekt202, LLC (p202) in the underlying Andra Group v. JDA litigation in Arizona, seeking broad categories of documents and detailed ESI production instructions. p202 is not a party to the Arizona case.
- p202 produced over 11,500 discrete non‑email documents (~21,000 pages) but moved to quash the subpoena as unduly burdensome (especially email/ESI searches across custodians) and sought payment of its fees.
- JDA opposed quash, cross‑moved to compel full compliance (including Office 365 email searches and re‑production of ShareFile materials per ESI protocol), and sought attorneys’ fees/costs.
- The magistrate judge evaluated Rule 45 and Rule 26 standards (undue burden, specificity, relevance, waiver), held a hearing, and found some requests facially overbroad but most relevant.
- The court modified (rather than quashed) the subpoena: limited production to enumerated categories (contractual role, disputes with Andra, qualifications/capacity, billing, certain evaluations, time records, scheduling/deliverables, control of tech, cessation of business with JDA, post‑2013 implementations, Accellos decision), quashed RFPs 10, 15, 16, and 17, and ordered p202 to re‑produce previously produced ESI in the subpoenaed format (except certain Bates ranges).
- The court denied shifting costs to JDA and denied sanctions under Rule 45(d)(1); each side will bear its own costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (p202) | Defendant's Argument (JDA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subpoena is unduly burdensome/overbroad | Subpoena seeks exhaustive ESI/email searches across custodians with no date/custodian limits; would impose substantial time/cost on a cooperative nonparty | p202 was deeply involved in the project; most requested materials are exclusively in p202’s possession and relevant to JDA’s defenses | Court: Partly sustained. Many requests relevant but some requests were facially overbroad; modified subpoena to narrowed, specific categories and quashed certain RFPs. |
| Whether p202 waived objections by not serving written objections | Failure to serve written objections should not bar review given negotiations and communications with JDA before motion to quash | JDA argued failure to serve objections typically waives defenses | Court: No waiver due to unusual circumstances (pre‑motion meet/ confer); reviewed objections on merits. |
| Whether cost‑shifting or sanctions are warranted | p202 sought fees/costs due to undue burden and broad subpoena | JDA argued p202 failed to quantify vendor costs and that production is reasonable given p202’s role | Court: Denied cost‑shifting and sanctions; p202 substantially justified resisting overbroad requests, and JDA took reasonable steps to limit scope. |
| Whether p202 must reproduce previously produced ESI in compliance with subpoena format | p202 had produced non‑readable PDFs lacking metadata and claimed burden to reformat | JDA sought compliance with its ESI protocol and repro of ShareFile material per its January 28 proposal | Court: Ordered p202 to re‑produce ESI in the subpoena’s specified form (at p202’s expense), excluding certain Bates ranges identified in JDA’s proposal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Isenberg v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 661 F. Supp. 2d 627 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (discusses Rule 45 use against nonparties and waiver through failure to timely object)
- Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2004) (standards for undue burden/overbreadth and factors for evaluating subpoenas issued to nonparties)
- Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (service of process defines party status; nonparty remains nonparty absent service)
- DeGeer v. Gillis, 755 F. Supp. 2d 909 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (factors used by courts when considering cost‑shifting for nonparty subpoena compliance)