Watts Constructors, LLC v. Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc.
2:20-mc-00211
D. Kan.Nov 6, 2020Background
- Watts Constructors (third-party/non-party) was subpoenaed by Boneso Brothers for documents relating to an Army Corps project at Camp Roberts where Watts was prime contractor and Boneso subcontracted HVAC work to Airtex.
- Boneso claims Watts withheld payments from Boneso and that Watts communications with USACE about payments/withholdings/liquidated damages are relevant to a payment dispute between Boneso and Airtex; Watts is not a party to that suit.
- Boneso served a subpoena duces tecum with 18 document requests; Watts produced some documents but objected to broad email production and to four specific requests (Nos. 3, 5, 6, 13) and moved to quash.
- Motion to quash was transferred to the District of Kansas; parties conferred and made supplemental productions but disputes persisted.
- The court applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and Rule 26(b) proportionality, denied quash on geographic/timeliness grounds, limited email compulsion, rejected wholesale redaction, and issued specific rulings on Requests 3, 5, 6, and 13.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watts) | Defendant's Argument (Boneso) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / waiver of objections | Motion to quash and objections are timely given parties' ongoing conferral; no waiver. | Motion untimely (filed >30 days after compliance); objections untimely. | Court exercised discretion, found motion timely and declined to find waiver. |
| Rule 45 100-mile/geographic limit | Watts: no Kansas office; mandatory appearance beyond 100 miles violates Rule 45. | Boneso: only document production requested; electronic production avoids Rule 45 violation. | Quash not warranted; electronic production avoids 100-mile problem. |
| Broad email production / undue burden | Watts: project lasted years with 25–30 custodians; full email search is unduly burdensome and costly; offered narrowed search terms/dates/custodians. | Boneso: doesn’t know custodians; likely only 1–2 key individuals; Watts should identify custodians. | Court denied broad compulsion of all emails; Watts need not perform sweeping custodian search but must produce emails responsive to specific requests if known. |
| Confidentiality / trade-secret redaction | Watts: pricing, staffing, logistics are proprietary and should be redacted or protected. | Boneso: Watts made conclusory claims; protective order suffices; no blanket redact. | Watts failed to show particularized trade-secret injury; blanket redaction denied; parties’ protective order governs disclosure. |
| Request No. 3 (USACE payments) | Objection as overly broad re payments for other subcontractors; produced some payment docs. | Boneso: payments to Watts from USACE are relevant to whether Watts flowed funds to Boneso. | Court ordered production of Watts’ payment requests to USACE and USACE responses/acknowledgments. |
| Request No. 5 (correspondence with USACE about payments) | Produce only documents related to Boneso’s work; other withholdings irrelevant/overbroad. | All correspondence about payments relevant to tracing withheld funds. | Court sustained Watts’ objection as overbroad and limited production to documents showing withholdings related to Boneso’s work. |
| Request No. 6 (Miller Act claims) | Other Miller Act claims irrelevant; fishing expedition. | Relevant to show pattern of withholding funds from subcontractors. | Court sustained Watts’ objection as overbroad and limited production to Miller Act documents relating to Boneso and Airtex only. |
| Request No. 13 (liquidated damages) | Watts: Docs about liquidated damages regarding other subcontractors irrelevant. | Boneso: liquidated-damages threats relate to why Watts withheld funds and allocation among subcontractors. | Court overruled Watts’ objection; required production of documents regarding liquidated damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- The opinion primarily relied on Federal Rules (Rules 45 and 26) and cited district-court decisions published only on Westlaw (WL). No authorities cited in the opinion have official reporter citations, so no Bluebook reporter-cited cases are listed here.
Order: Watts’s motion to quash granted in part and denied in part; Watts must produce documents responsive to Requests 3 and 13 and the narrowed subsets of Requests 5 and 6 (as limited above); broad email compulsion and blanket redaction were denied. Production deadline in the order: November 20, 2020.