Worldwide Distribution LLLP v. Everlotus Industries Corp.
1:16-mc-00067
N.D. OhioFeb 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Worldwide Distribution sued former suppliers in Florida alleging tortious interference with its business relationships; Florida court authorized jurisdictional discovery including a subpoena to non-party American Brass.
- Plaintiff served a subpoena on American Brass seeking communications between American Brass and the Defendants (and between American Brass and Dehco) from Jan 2014 to Feb 2016.
- American Brass, a competitor of Plaintiff and a purchaser from the same suppliers, moved to quash in Florida; the Florida court denied with leave to refile in the proper district.
- Plaintiff moved in this Court (Northern District of Ohio) to compel production after unsuccessful meet-and-confer efforts; American Brass opposed on grounds the documents are proprietary, competitively sensitive, and allegedly obtainable from Defendants.
- The Court found the requested documents relevant and necessary for jurisdictional discovery, Defendants lacked the communications, and American Brass offered only conclusory evidence of competitive harm.
- The Court granted the motion to compel but ordered the production subject to a protective order (pricing designated attorneys’-eyes-only); fee request denied as American Brass’s opposition was substantially justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-party American Brass must produce communications responsive to a Rule 45 subpoena relevant to jurisdictional discovery | Communications are relevant and necessary to show Defendants’ tortious conduct and jurisdictional contacts; Defendants no longer possess the emails | Production would disclose proprietary pricing and supplier information, causing competitive harm; production unduly burdensome and duplicative | Compel production; relevance and need satisfied; no undue burden shown; protective order required |
| Whether requested information is protected as confidential/proprietary such that production should be denied or limited | Plaintiff agreed to protective measures and sought discovery despite confidential nature | American Brass claimed disclosure would harm competitive position by revealing supplier pricing and customer contacts | Information may be confidential but court balanced need vs harm and required production under protective order with attorneys’-eyes-only for pricing |
| Whether Plaintiff can obtain documents from another source (necessity) | Defendants deleted the communications and told Florida court further search would be futile | American Brass argued information could be obtained from Defendants | Court found Plaintiff cannot obtain the information from Defendants; need established |
| Award of fees for motion to compel | Plaintiff sought fees for bringing motion | American Brass argued its opposition justified | Fees denied because American Brass’s opposition was substantially justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Medical Ctr. at Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Premier Health Partners, 294 F.R.D. 87 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (scope of Rule 45 discovery equals Rule 26 and special sensitivity for non-party burden)
- Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1998) (trial court has broad discretion over discovery scope)
- R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010) (protective orders appropriate to safeguard confidential discovery)