Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc.
6:17-cv-00236
M.D. Fla.Jun 20, 2017Background
- Local Access sued Peerless for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; Peerless moved to dismiss or for a more definite statement.
- Peerless served a Rule 45 subpoena on non-party Inteliquent seeking 21 categories of documents, including materials relating to non-party Blitz.
- Inteliquent objected to the subpoena; Local Access moved for a protective order. Blitz moved to intervene solely to move to quash the Inteliquent subpoena, claiming the subpoena seeks Blitz’s trade secrets and proprietary information.
- Peerless does not oppose Blitz’s intervention; Blitz filed within the Rule 45 timeframe to move to quash.
- The Court considered the four-element test for intervention as of right (timeliness, protectable interest, impairment of interest, inadequate representation) and granted limited intervention solely to allow Blitz to file a motion to quash within seven days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of intervention | Blitz filed within Rule 45 deadline; timely | No opposition to intervention | Motion is timely; granted |
| Existence of protectable interest | Blitz claims trade secrets/proprietary commercial information | No opposition; Peerless subpoenaed Blitz-related records | Blitz has a direct, substantial, protectable interest |
| Impairment of interest if not allowed to intervene | Court rulings on subpoena could force disclosure of Blitz’s confidential info | No opposition | Disposition could impair Blitz’s ability to protect interests; requirement satisfied |
| Adequacy of existing representation | Local Access/Inteliquent may not adequately protect Blitz’s confidential interests | No party contested adequacy; minimal burden to show inadequacy | Representation "may be" inadequate; intervention permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197 (11th Cir. 1989) (standards for intervention and adequacy of representation)
- United States v. Jefferson Cnty., 720 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1983) (factors for timeliness of intervention)
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1972) (minimal showing that representation may be inadequate)
- Dow Jones & Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 161 F.R.D. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (recognizing third‑party interest in protecting confidential materials)
- Angel Flight of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., [citation="272 F. App'x 817"] (11th Cir. 2009) (discussing intervention timing and standards)