Pizzuti v. Nashville Hospitality Capital LLC, 2:18-mc-00040

Ronald A. Pizzuti (Ron) is founder/CEO of Pizzuti Companies; the company is developing the Joseph Nashville hotel in Nashville. Joel Pizzuti runs day-to-day management of that project.
Nashville Hospitality Capital, LLC (NHC) operates the nearby Westin and sued Wischermann Partners for allegedly breaching a non-compete and disclosing confidential Westin information to the Joseph Nashville team.
NHC sought discovery from Pizzuti Companies and obtained over 5,500 documents; it then subpoenaed several Pizzuti employees (Joel S. Pizzuti, Daniel Gore, Ronn H. Stewart II) for depositions and later subpoenaed Ron for a deposition.
Ron filed a motion to quash and for a protective order, asserting limited personal involvement: he attends periodic executive meetings, sent/received very few project emails, and was generally not involved in operational or substantive decisions for the Joseph Nashville.
NHC argued Ron was a key figure with responsive documents and should be deposed to probe alleged receipt of Westin confidential information and to test witness memories.
The magistrate judge granted the motion to quash, finding Ron’s testimony would be duplicative of testimony from Joel, Gore, Stewart, and Wischermann and that his deposition would impose an undue burden on a non-party.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (NHC)	Defendant's Argument (Pizzuti)	Held
Whether a third-party deposition of Ronald Pizzuti should be compelled under Rule 45	Ron was a key figure in the Joseph Nashville project; his name appears on many documents and emails; his testimony is needed to develop facts about Wischermann’s alleged disclosure of Westin confidential information	Ron has limited, largely non-substantive involvement; key witnesses (Joel, Gore, Stewart, Wischermann) can provide the same information; compelling a non-party deposition would be unduly burdensome and duplicative	Motion to quash granted; deposition prohibited as unduly burdensome and unreasonably cumulative/duplicative
Whether discovery sought is disproportional or available from less burdensome sources	NHC contends testing memory of all participants is necessary	Ron and the court point to depositions and document production from other Pizzuti employees that cover the relevant topics	Court found discovery duplicative and available from other sources; proportionality favors quash

Bush v. Dictaphone Corp., 161 F.3d 363 (6th Cir. 1998) (district court has discretion to determine discovery scope)
Conti v. American Axle & Mfg., Inc., [citation="326 F. App'x 900"] (6th Cir. 2009) (courts may balance discovery rights against preventing fishing expeditions)
Nix v. Sword, [citation="11 F. App'x 498"] (6th Cir. 2001) (movant must show specific facts establishing good cause for protective order)
In re Smirman, 267 F.R.D. 221 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (status as non-party is significant in undue-burden analysis for subpoenas)
Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (quashing subpoena where witness had limited knowledge and testimony would be duplicative)