Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02001/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02001-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

wo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Firetrace USA, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Lawrence Jesclard, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2001-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Background

On October 28, 2008, Plaintiff served third-party subpoenas on three of Defendants’

vendors (Doc. 320 Ex. A). Each subpoena includes an identical request for production of

documents and a notice of deposition. The requested documents are: (1) all communications

with Defendants, April 8, 2005 to present; (2) all communications with Defendants’ counsel,

April 8, 2005 to present; (3) all documents provided to Defendants in connection with any

bid; (4) all communications with potential or actual customers of Defendant Hazard

Protection Systems (HPS) relating to their business transactions with HPS; (5) all

communications with the Small Business Administration relating to Defendants; (6) all

communications with the U.S. military relating to Defendants; and (7) all internal

communications regarding decisions to provide products or services to Defendants.

Case 2:07-cv-02001-ROS Document 346 Filed 12/08/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, Defendants claim the requested

documents are irrelevant, overly burdensome, and impermissibly targeted toward the

development of new claims and defenses (Doc. 320 at 2-3). Defendants also claim the

request, if deemed relevant, may be executed by Defendants and Plaintiff’s service of

subpoenas on the third-parties is motivated by harassment (Doc. 320 at 2-3). 

Plaintiff claims Defendants do not have standing under Rule 26 to object to subpoenas

issued to third-parties (Doc. 320 at 4). Plaintiff further claims the requested documents are

relevant to establish: (A) a connection between Defendants’ profits (including successful

federal government bids) and Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s rights; (B) the extent to

which Defendants disclosed Plaintiff’s confidential information to third-parties; and (C) the

extent to which Defendants disclosed information under seal in the current proceedings to

third-parties (Doc. 320 at 4-6). Plaintiff further claims it is not discovering documents to

generate new claims or defenses and Defendants cannot be trusted to produce documents

detrimental to their case (Doc. 320 at 4-5). 

Discussion

A. Standing

Plaintiff claims Defendants have no standing to challenge subpoenas issued to thirdparties because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3) (“Rule 45") only allows the

nonparty target of a subpoena, not a party, to challenge the subpoena’s validity. See James

Wm. Moore, 9 Moore’s Federal Practice § 45.50[3] at 45-79, 80 (3d ed. 2008) (“[When a

subpoena is directed to a nonparty, any motion to quash or modify the subpoena generally

must be brought by the nonparty,” except where the party “claims a personal right or

privilege regarding the production or testimony.”). Defendants claim Rule 45 is irrelevant

because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) (“Rule 26") allows a party to challenge all

disclosures, regardless of their source, if the requested information exposes the moving party

to “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” This question is

unsettled in the Ninth Circuit and Defendants have the better argument.

Case 2:07-cv-02001-ROS Document 346 Filed 12/08/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

According to its 1991 Advisory Committee Notes, Rule 45(c)(3) “tracks the

provisions of Rule 26(c).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. In this way, Rules 45 and 26 are not mutually

exclusive, but rather cover the same ground. Under Rule 26(c), a party may move for a

protective order to protect itself from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

burden or expense,” regardless of whether the moving party is seeking to prevent disclosure

of information by a nonparty, as long as the moving party can tie the protected information

to an interest listed in the rule, such as annoyance, embarrassment, etc. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

See also e.g. Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1202,

1206 n.3 (D. Or. 1999), rev’d on other grounds; Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454,

459 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Under Rule 45(c), a party may prevent the disclosure of information

by a subpoenaed nonparty if the party “claims a personal right or privilege regarding the

production or testimony.” Moore, supra at 45-79, 80. See also Jerry T. O’Brien, Inc. v Sec.

& Exch. Comm’n, 704 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds, (“Barring

questions of privilege or other special circumstances,” parties “have no right to protect or

withhold documents held by a third party.”); Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Rebel Oil Co., Inc.,

157 F.R.D. 691, 695 (D. Nev. 1994). The Court reads the interests required for a protective

order under Rule 26(c) and the “claim of personal right or privilege” required for a party to

challenge a subpoena under Rule 45(c) to be the same. Thus, under either rule a party may

prevent the disclosure of information from a nonparty by showing a “claim of personal right

or privilege,” including information which could expose the moving party to “annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”

B. Discovery Ruling

Because Defendants do not raise protected interests cognizable under Rules 26(c) and

45(c), the Court finds for Plaintiff and will not issue the requested protective order. The

information sought by Plaintiff is relevant, calculated to discover what confidential

information Defendants shared with third-parties and how this information was used to

secure contracts and profits for Defendants. Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, this

Case 2:07-cv-02001-ROS Document 346 Filed 12/08/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

information is relevant to Plaintiff’s existing claims, such as liability on the untried unfair

competition claim or damages on the tried breach of contract and misappropriation of trade

secrets claims. While bona fide allegations of harassment could implicate the interests

outlined in Rules 26(c) and 45(c), Defendants’ allegations are not supported with evidence

and, given Defendants’ credibility and track record, should not be given much weight. To

address Defendants’ harassment concerns, the Court will limit the scope of Plaintiff’s

document discovery request as future guidance to prevent Plaintiff from over zealously

seeking information from Defendants’ clients and vendors in future subpoenas. Defendants’

final claim, that Defendants should be allowed to produce the requested materials instead of

the subpoenaed third parties, is also without merit. Many of the requested documents do not

concern Defendants and would not be in Defendants’ possession.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s October 28, 2008 subpoenas issued to BGF Industries,

Inc., Aerial Machine & Tool Corp., and Assemblies Unlimited, Inc. ARE AFFIRMED, with

the following changes:

(3) All documents provided to Lawrence Jesclard, Candice Jesclard, or HPS

(“Defendants”) in connection with his, her, or its preparation of bids in which the

subpoenaed party participated or was asked to participate with Defendants; 

(4) All communications with actual HPS customers relating to those customers’

transactions with HPS.

DATED this 8th day of December, 2008.

 

Case 2:07-cv-02001-ROS Document 346 Filed 12/08/08 Page 4 of 4