Willey v. BMW of North America, LLC
2:24-cv-00467
D. Nev.Jul 30, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Richard L. Willey, Jr. served subpoenas on several non-parties in the course of regular discovery in a civil action against BMW of North America, LLC, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, and Wuthrich BMW LLC.
- Defendants moved for a protective order to prevent non-parties from responding to the subpoenas, arguing discovery was improper without court permission for jurisdictional purposes.
- Plaintiff argued discovery was procedurally proper, that defendants lacked standing to challenge the subpoenas, and that a discovery plan allowing discovery was already in place until February 2025.
- Defendants asserted their right to seek a protective order under Rule 26, but did not identify a personal interest, privilege, or specific harm to themselves from the subpoenas.
- The court also considered Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees in light of Defendants’ unsuccessful bid for the protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge non-party subpoenas | Defendants lack standing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and didn't show own interest at stake | Can move for protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 | Defendants lack standing absent showing of personal interest, privilege, or harm |
| Need for court permission for jurisdictional discovery | Discovery plan entered; no need for special permission | Plaintiff must seek permission to conduct jurisdictional discovery | No permission required once scheduling order is entered and discovery is open |
| Justification for protective order | Defendants fail to show harm or violation of rights | No articulated harm; focus on procedural arguments | No protective order; harm not established |
| Attorney’s fees for motion | Should be granted given Defendant’s motion failure | Motion was justified, if unsuccessful | Denied: Defendants' arguments were not frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992) (broad harm allegations are insufficient under Rule 26(c))
- Marvix Photo, Inc. v. Brands Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff's initial burden for personal jurisdiction)
- Thornberry v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 676 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1982) (broad discretion in awarding attorney's fees)