Flynn v. FCA US LLC
216 F. Supp. 3d 44
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Flynn, Brown, Brown, Keith) sued FCA US LLC and Harman in the S.D. Ill. alleging defects in Harman-made vehicle infotainment systems that allowed remote hacking; claims include Magnuson-Moss breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and state consumer statutes.
- Auto-ISAC, a D.C.-based non-profit automotive cybersecurity information-sharing organization incorporated in 2015, received a third-party subpoena from plaintiffs seeking: (1) documents related to Auto-ISAC’s 2016 "Best Practices" and (2) communications with FCA from June 2010 to present.
- Parties agreed to serve the subpoena on Auto-ISAC’s counsel in D.C.; Auto-ISAC moved in D.D.C. to quash the subpoena on grounds of relevance, undue burden, duplication of discovery, and risk to confidential cybersecurity information.
- Plaintiffs opposed and alternatively requested transfer of the motion to quash to the issuing court (S.D. Ill.), noting that court’s familiarity with the case and a time-sensitive discovery schedule (fact discovery closing mid-December 2016).
- The D.D.C. court analyzed Rule 45(f) (transfer for motions to quash) and balanced avoiding burdens on local nonparties against efficiency and the issuing court’s familiarity with the underlying litigation.
- The court concluded exceptional circumstances warranted transfer: relevance and duplication issues are closely tied to the merits and discovery in the issuing court; the S.D. Ill. court is better positioned to assess protective-order and confidentiality concerns; transfer would not unduly burden Auto-ISAC and would avoid disrupting a time-sensitive discovery plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.D.C. should decide Auto-ISAC’s motion to quash or transfer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) | Transfer to issuing court is appropriate because that court is familiar with the case, has resolved discovery issues, and discovery is time-sensitive | Oppose transfer; D.D.C. can resolve the motion; transfer would unduly burden Auto-ISAC and is unnecessary | Transferred to the S.D. Ill. as exceptional circumstances exist favoring transfer |
| Relevance of subpoenaed materials | Materials sought are relevant to underlying claims and issuing court should assess relevance | Materials are irrelevant to the underlying action | Court found relevance determination is best made by issuing court and favored transfer |
| Duplication of discovery (overlap with FCA production) | Discovery procedures and issuing court can assess duplication and manage overlap | Subpoena seeks duplicative materials already requested from FCA; favors quash | Issuing court is better positioned to evaluate duplication; favored transfer |
| Confidentiality and risk of chilling cybersecurity information sharing | Protective-order and issuing court’s experience can address confidentiality concerns | Disclosure would chill industry information sharing; protective order insufficient; quash needed to protect proprietary info | Issuing court, already overseeing discovery and parties, is better placed to evaluate and manage confidentiality risks; transfer ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Valle Del Sol, 307 F.R.D. 30 (D.D.C. 2014) (factors for transfer under Rule 45(f) and weight of issuing court’s discovery role)
- Wultz v. Bank of China, Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 38 (D.D.C. 2014) (judicial economy and avoiding inconsistent results support transfer)
- Duck v. SEC, 317 F.R.D. 321 (D.D.C. 2016) (transfer appropriate to avoid interference with time-sensitive discovery)
- In re UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. of P.R. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 3d 286 (D.D.C. 2015) (long pendency and case complexity can favor transfer)
- XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C., 307 F.R.D. 10 (D.D.C. 2014) (relevance disputes may be best resolved by issuing court)
- Flanagan v. Wyndham Int’l Inc., 231 F.R.D. 98 (D.D.C. 2005) (issuing court’s familiarity with underlying case supports transfer)
- Patriot Nat’l Ins. Grp. v. Oriska Ins. Co., 973 F. Supp. 2d 173 (N.D.N.Y. 2013) (relevance argument can demonstrate need for issuing court to decide subpoena disputes)