Precourt v. Fairbank Reconstruction Corp.
280 F.R.D. 462
D.S.D.2011Background
- GOPAC subpoenaed nonparty BPI in Precourt; the court granted BPI’s motion to quash and awarded sanctions against GOPAC; GOPAC served new subpoenas on BPI on January 6, 2011.
- BPI manufactures lean ground beef products (LFTB) with plants in SD, NE, IA, KS, and TX; BPI was not a party in Precourt.
- Precourt concerns the source of E. coli in Fairbank’s recalled product; GOPAC contends BPI, not GOPAC, may be the source.
- GOPAC sought broad government inspection records, microbiological testing, and extensive operational data from BPI; BPI objected as overly broad, irrelevant, burdensome, or proprietary.
- The court narrowed certain requests (A and B time frames) and granted BPI’s motion to quash subparts C-J; depreciation of subpart I found no responsive documents.
- Sanctions were issued previously for the first motion to quash; GOPAC sought reconsideration, and the court denied it; the court awarded BPI $5,618 in attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GOPAC’s second subpoenas to BPI should be quashed | GOPAC argues relevance and necessity; seeks FSIS records and testing data. | BPI contends subpoenas are unduly burdensome and overly broad for a nonparty, and seeks protective limits. | Partial quash; subparts C-J blocked; A and B time frames narrowed and preserved as appropriate. |
| Whether the court properly denied GOPAC’s motion for reconsideration of sanctions | GOPAC claimed it acted in good faith and the subpoenas were moot after new subpoenas issued. | BPI argued GOPAC failed to show exceptional circumstances or respond to motions; no error in the ruling. | Denied; no exceptional circumstances shown; reconsideration denied. |
| Whether the attorney-fees award to BPI was reasonable | BPI seeks $12,871.05 for 49.7 hours at stated rates. | GOPAC argues the hours are excessive; reduce to a reasonable amount under lodestar. | Fees reduced to $5,618 as reasonable under lodestar method. |
| Whether deposition topics should be narrowed to relevant periods and scope | Topics should cover broad microbiological and product testing as related to E. coli source. | Testing beyond August 1–September 16, 2009 is overly broad for a nonparty. | Topics 1-3 narrowed to product, incoming raw material, and LFTB E. coli and pH testing (Aug 1–Sep 16, 2009); topics 5–7 allowed with period-limitation; topic 8 limited; topics 9–10 potentially restricted due to trade secrets; topic 11 barred; topic 12 limited to HACCP plans for August 1–September 16, 2009. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377 (8th Cir. 1992) (discovery relevance broader than admissibility; threshold relevance required)
- In re Remington Arms Co., 952 F.2d 1029 (8th Cir. 1991) (protective balancing with confidential information and necessity for discovery)
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 107 F.R.D. 288 (D. Del. 1985) (balancing test for confidential or proprietary information in discovery)
- Miscellaneous Docket Matter #1 v. Miscellaneous Docket Matter #197 F.3d 922, 197 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 1999) (threshold relevance for discovery burden and sanctions context)