Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01025/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01025-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 - Diversity: Securities Fraud

---

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

Robert Facciola, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1025-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant Greenberg Traurig’s motion to compel the

production of documents from non-party Oxford Investment Partners, LLC (doc. 228),

Oxford’s response, motion to quash, and motion for protective order (doc. 241), Greenberg’s

reply (doc. 242), and Oxford’s reply (doc. 246).

Greenberg served a subpoena for documents on Oxford, a non-party investment firm,

requesting multiple categories of documents relating to Mortgages Ltd. (“ML”) investments.

Greenberg asserts that Oxford was “intimately involved” in selling ML’s securities to

approximately 30 clients, including named plaintiff Robert Facciola. Motion at 2. Oxford

was not only Facciola’s financial advisor on his ML investments, but it also had discretion

over Facciola’s accounts and a power of attorney with respect to his ML securities. Id., ex.

8. 

Greenberg requests all documents related to ML, including those documents related

Case 2:10-cv-01025-FJM Document 286 Filed 11/03/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

to putative absent class members. It contends that any documents reflecting Oxford’s

knowledge of ML and its loan quality are directly imputable and therefore relevant to

Facciola’s knowledge of ML’s financial stability, as well as Oxford’s own degree of fault.

Oxford raises three arguments in opposition to the subpoena. It first contends that

Greenberg should not be permitted to obtain Oxford’s clients’ personal financial information,

arguing that such financial information is highly confidential and therefore not discoverable.

However, there is no absolute rule against discovery of documents bearing on third-party

finances. The test is whether the document request is reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. The mere fact that the documents may contain

confidential, third-party financial information does not make them undiscoverable,

particularly here where a protective order is in place (doc. 224). Oxford’s generalized

assertion that the requested documents may contain confidential financial information is

insufficient to defend against this motion to compel.

Oxford also contends that, independent of the confidentiality concerns, Greenberg is

not entitled to discovery of the absent class clients. Although discovery from absent class

members is “neither prohibited nor sanctioned explicitly” by the Federal Rules, courts

generally do not permit discovery from absent class members absent a showing of a

particularized need for information that could not be obtained from the class representative.

Rojas v. Marko Zaninovich, Inc., 2011 WL 2636071, *4 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2011); Pierce v.

County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1202 n.9 (9th Cir. 2008) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 imposes

inherent limitations on absent class member discovery.). Here, however, the subpoena is not

directed at absent class members. Although the discovery request presented to Oxford may

lead to information regarding absent class members, there is no rule prohibiting discovery

of documents pertaining to absent class members. Therefore, the heightened requirements

relating to the discovery of absent class members do not apply. 

Finally, Oxford objects that Greenberg’s request for documents about an investigation

that law firm Stinson Morrison Hecker (“SMH”) conducted for Oxford is improper. It is

alleged that Oxford retained SMH in the fall of 2007 to investigate ML because of concerns

Case 2:10-cv-01025-FJM Document 286 Filed 11/03/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

about ML’s financial stability. Greenberg argues that it is seeking unprivileged documents

only and asks that the remaining documents be logged so that it may assess the privilege.

Greenberg further contends that if SMH learned information about ML from third parties in

the course of their investigation, that information is not privileged. 

We conclude that Greenberg has satisfied its showing that the requested documents

are relevant to the claims and defenses presented in this action, and are not privileged or

improperly directed to absent class members. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Greenberg’s motion to compel (doc. 228) and

DENYING Oxford’s motion to quash (doc. 241).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Oxford’s motion for protective order

(doc. 241). The protective order entered on July 7, 2011, shall apply with equal force and

effect to the Oxford subpoena. 

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01025-FJM Document 286 Filed 11/03/11 Page 3 of 3