316 F.R.D. 693
N.D. Ga.2016Background
- Plaintiffs in a Southern District of Georgia housing-discrimination suit served a Rule 45 subpoena on third-party GA HAP (d/b/a NHC) seeking documents about the Westgate Apartments from after 12/31/2011.
- GA HAP moved to quash the subpoena, alleging (1) Rule 45’s 100-mile geographical limit was violated by requiring production in California, (2) the subpoena was overbroad and would impose undue burden, and (3) production could disclose proprietary/confidential information.
- Plaintiffs opposed, offered to modify the subpoena to allow production at GA HAP’s Georgia office or by email, agreed to a confidentiality provision for nonpublic materials, and proposed an initial electronic rolling production.
- GA HAP did not file a substantive reply; the court treated the motion to compel as unopposed but reviewed the merits of both motions.
- The court modified the subpoena (production in Tucker, GA, or by email at GA HAP’s election), ordered an initial electronic production within 21 days (paper only if electronic materials point to additional relevant documents), and required produced materials be treated confidential except HUD records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geographic compliance with Rule 45 | Modify production location to within 100 miles to cure defect | Subpoena improperly required production in California beyond 100-mile limit | Court modified subpoena: production in Tucker, GA, or by email (GA HAP's choice) |
| Undue burden of production | Offer to phase production (electronic first) and confidentiality reduces burden | Production would require many hours, disrupt operations, and be costly | GA HAP’s bare assertions insufficient; court ordered electronic production within 21 days and phased approach for paper files |
| Confidentiality / trade secrets | Agreed confidentiality provision for nonpublic documents; no need for quash | Some responsive documents "could" be proprietary or confidential; seek protection | GA HAP failed to show documents are trade secrets; court denied quash but imposed confidentiality for produced docs (except HUD records) |
| Motion to quash subpoena to NHC (d/b/a issue) | Plaintiffs treated GA HAP/NHC as same; focused on GA HAP subpoena | GA HAP contended NHC does not exist but does business as NHC | Court granted GA HAP’s motion to quash the subpoena to NHC as unopposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Magluta v. Samples, 162 F.3d 662 (11th Cir.) (failure to respond may justify granting motion)
- Heat & Control, Inc. v. Hester Indus., Inc., 785 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir.) (balancing relevance, need, and hardship for subpoena)
- Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. Northrop King Co., Inc., 6 F. Supp. 2d 859 (E.D. Mo.) (requiring party asserting undue burden to make concrete showing)
- Fadalla v. Life Automotive Prod., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 501 (M.D. Fla.) (Rule 45 authorizes quash/modify for trade secrets/confidential commercial information)
- Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal.) (protective measures and confidentiality orders can address trade-secret concerns)