Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00847/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00847-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

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 

Andrew Berrey, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Plaintiff Investment Funding LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00847-PHX-BSB

ORDER 

 Defendant Injury Assistance, LLC (Injury Assistance) has filed a motion to 

compel non-parties Amanda Nelson and the law firm Elardo, Bragg, Appel & Rossi 

(Elardo law firm) and Electric Insurance Company (Electric) to comply with subpoenas 

duces tecum. (Doc. 51.) The Elardo firm and Electric have responded and filed a cross 

motion for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 60.) Injury Assistance has filed a reply in support of its 

motion to compel (Doc. 61), and the Elardo firm and Electric have filed a reply in support 

of their motion for attorneys’ fees. For the reasons below, the Court denies the motion to 

compel and the motion for attorneys’ fees. 

I. Background 

 On July 22, 2014, Injury Assistance served separate subpoenas on the Elardo firm 

and Electric. (Doc. 51, Exs. 1 and 8.) The subpoenas requested that the Elardo firm and 

Electric produce responsive documents by August 8, 2014. (Id.) Counsel for Injury 

Assistance states that after that date passed without a response, he called and left two 

messages for Nelson at the Elardo firm. (Doc. 51 at 3, and at Ex. 2.) He also states that 

Case 2:14-cv-00847-BSB Document 70 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 8
- 2 - 

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 

he spoke with Nelson prior to serving the subpoena “regarding what [he] was looking 

for.” (Doc. 51 at Ex. 2.) On August 21, 2014, he sent a letter to Nelson stating that he 

had not received responses to the subpoenas, explaining that he called her twice without a 

response, and stating that would file a motion to compel if he did not receive a response 

to the subpoenas by August 27, 2014. (Doc. 51, Ex. 2.) 

 On August 25, 2014, thirty-four days after service of the subpoenas and seventeen 

days after the response date set in the subpoenas, John Elardo of the Elardo firm sent 

Injury Assistance’s counsel a letter and a CD with documents to respond to the 

subpoenas. (Doc. 51, Ex. 3.) Elardo also asserted untimely relevance objections to the 

subpoenas. (Id.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B) (written objection to subpoena must be 

served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the 

subpoena is served). 

 On September 8, 2014, Injury Assistance’s counsel responded to Elardo’s letter by 

email and asserted that the Elardo firm’s response to the subpoenas was incomplete and 

that he would file a motion to compel if he did not receive a complete response to the 

subpoenas by September 19, 2014. (Doc. 51, Ex. 4.) On September 18, 2014, Elardo 

responded by email stating that “we sent you the documents we believe were responsive 

to your request.” (Id. at Ex. 5.) Elardo also asserted that Injury Assistance was seeking 

documents that had “nothing to do with” his clients, and that the documents could be 

obtained from the court, or from the parties. (Id.) Elardo further stated that “if you think 

we left something out, you surely can get it from other sources — we did not originate 

these documents.” (Id.) Finally, he stated that he did not have authorization to release 

medical records and that “the remaining objections relative to attorney client privilege are 

invoked.” (Id.) 

 On September 24, 2014, Injury Assistance’s counsel responded by email and again 

asserted that the Elardo firm’s response to the subpoenas was incomplete and he 

requested a privilege log. (Id. at Ex. 6.) He also stated that he did not need medical 

records in response to the subpoenas. (Id.) He again asserted that he would file a motion 

Case 2:14-cv-00847-BSB Document 70 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 8
- 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 

to compel by October 1, 2014 if he did not receive a complete response to the subpoenas. 

(Id.) 

 On September 25, 2014, Nelson sent a letter to Injury Assistance’s counsel and 

asserted that the Elardo firm had fully responded to both subpoenas, that Injury 

Assistance had not explained what documents were missing from the response, and 

stating that she would seek fees if Injury Assistance filed a motion to compel. (Id. at 

Ex. 7.) Nelson also asserted additional untimely objections on the basis that the 

subpoenas were “overly broad, vague and unduly burdensome” and sought documents 

protected by “privilege/work product.” (Id.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). Nelson 

also provided some description of the documents in the possession of the Elardo firm and 

Electric, and invoked Rule 26(b)(5) to support her assertion that, as non-parties, the 

Elardo firm and Electric were not required to provide a privilege log.1

 (Id.) 

II. The Motion to Compel 

 On October 8, 2014, Injury Assistance filed its motion to compel arguing that the 

Elardo firm and Electric did not fully comply with the subpoenas. (Doc. 51 at 3.) Injury 

Assistance also set forth its counsel’s communications with the Elardo firm regarding the 

responses to the subpoenas, and requested an order compelling the Elardo firm and 

Electric to fully comply with the subpoenas and to provide a privilege log. (Id. at 3-5.) 

 In response, the Elardo firm and Electric assert that they have fully complied with 

the subpoenas, that Injury Assistance did not confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve 

any dispute over the subpoenas and did not file a certificate under Rule 37(a)(1) averring 

attempts to confer in good faith, and that Injury Assistance has not explained what 

documents are missing from the response to the subpoenas. (Doc. 60 at 4-5.) In reply, 

 

1

 In response to the motion to compel, the Elardo firm and Electric do not dispute Injury Assistance’s description of their communications, as set forth in the exhibits to the 

motion to compel. Instead, they attach as an exhibit to their response one additional email that was not attached to Injury Assistance’s motion to compel. (Doc. 60, Ex. A.) This additional email is dated September 17, 2014 from Nelson to Injury Assistance’s counsel and it states “I do not know what additional documents you are looking for in addition to what I sent nor have I had a request for additional documents.” (Id.) Nelson 

sent this email one day before Elardo’s September 18, 2014 email in which he asserted 

objections and stated that the response to the subpoenas was complete. (Doc. 51, Ex. 5.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00847-BSB Document 70 Filed 12/09/14 Page 3 of 8
- 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 

Injury Assistance filed a statement from counsel to certify his attempts to confer in good 

faith with Elardo and Nelson to resolve this dispute. (Doc. 61.) 

A. Injury Assistance’s Obligation to Meet and Confer 

 The Elardo firm and Electric argue that the Court should deny Injury Assistance’s 

motion to compel based on its failure to file a Rule 37(a)(1) certificate with its motion. 

(Doc. 60 at 4.) The Court will not deny the motion to compel on this basis. Although 

Injury Assistance did not include with its motion to compel a certification of its good 

faith attempts to resolve this matter, the Court finds that the motion and attached exhibits 

sufficiently document Injury Assistance’s repeated attempts to resolve this matter with 

Elardo and Nelson through telephone calls, letters, and emails. 

 In response to its communications with Elardo and Nelson, Injury Assistance 

received repeated assertions that the document productions were complete and untimely 

assertions of objections. Although it appears that Injury Assistance and the non-parties 

were able to resolve some issues related to medical records and narrow the scope of their 

dispute, their discussions did not move beyond the conflicting assertions about whether 

the non-parties’ response to the subpoenas was complete, and neither side proposed any 

method to resolve their dispute. 

 Instead, the Elardo firm and Electric asserted that Injury Assistance must identify 

the specific documents from their files that it believed were not produced in response to 

the subpoenas. Injury Assistance, however, did not have access to these files and 

therefore could not specifically identify the requested documents. Similarly, Injury 

Assistance did not propose any method to confirm compliance with the subpoenas. 

Therefore, the Court finds that there was a mutual break down in communications and 

both Injury Assistance and the Elardo firm and Electric failed to engage in good faith 

attempts to resolve their discovery dispute. Because both sides bear responsibility for 

their failed attempts to resolve this discovery dispute, the Court will not find that Injury 

Assistance violated Rule 37. 

Case 2:14-cv-00847-BSB Document 70 Filed 12/09/14 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

 The Court, however, notes that Injury Assistance did not comply with the Case 

Management Order, which prohibits filing written discovery motions without leave of 

court. (Doc. 40 at ¶ 6.) The Case Management Order requires that if a discovery dispute 

arises, the parties must contact the Court to request a telephonic conference concerning 

the dispute. (Id.) Because this provision of the Case Management Order could be 

construed as applying only to disputes between parties, the Court will not deny Injury 

Assistance’s motion based on its failure to comply with this provision. Instead, the Court 

clarifies that this provision applies to all discovery disputes, including disputes with nonparties, and directs Injury Assistance to continue its attempts to meet and confer with the 

Elardo firm and Electric to resolve this matter. If those attempts fail, then Injury 

Assistance must contact the Court to request a telephonic conference with the Court and 

the non-parties to discuss the matter. 

B. The Non-Parties’ Objections to the Subpoenas 

 The Elardo firm and Electric also assert that Injury Assistance has not established 

that the documents it seeks are “material” and that Injury Assistance is engaged in a 

“fishing expedition.” (Doc. 60 at 5.) This appears to be another form of their untimely 

objections based on relevance. The Court finds that the Elardo firm and Electric have 

waived any objections based on relevance or materiality, or that the subpoenas are overly 

broad, vague or unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B); see also Voxpath 

RS, LLC v. LG Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 2013 WL 5744045, at *3 (D. Ariz. Oct. 23, 2013) (an 

untimely objection generally waives all grounds for objection to a subpoena); Avila v. 

Cate, 2013 WL 428732, at *3 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 1, 2013) (the failure to timely object to a 

subpoena generally waives objections, however, courts have recognized an exception 

when the responding party establishes unusual circumstances and good cause for the 

failure) (citations omitted); Deal v. Lutheran Hosps. & Homes, 127 F.R.D. 166, 168 

(D. Alaska 1989) (finding that a nonparty’s failure to timely object waived objections to 

documents requested in subpoenas and noting that the document production aspects of 

Case 2:14-cv-00847-BSB Document 70 Filed 12/09/14 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

Rule 45 should be construed consistently with Rules 33, 34, and 36, which contain 

similar waiver provisions.) 

C. The Non-Parties’ Obligation to Provide a Privilege Log 

 The Elardo firm and Electric also assert that, as non-parties, they are not required 

to provide a privilege log for any documents they withheld. They rely on Rule 

26(b)(5)(A), which refers to a party withholding documents on the basis of privilege. 

Their argument, however, disregards Rule 45(e)(2)(A), which provides that a “person

withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged . . . must: 

(i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents . . . 

in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable 

the parties to assess the claim.”2

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)(A) (emphasis added). 

Therefore, the Court finds that the Elardo firm and Electric are not excused from their 

duty to provide a privilege log simply because they are non-parties. 

 D. The Non-Parties’ Compliance with the Subpoenas 

 The central issue presented in the motion to compel is whether the Elardo firm and 

Electric have fully complied with the subpoenas. Injury Assistance asserts that they have 

not fully complied with the subpoenas based on the limited number of documents 

produced and the absence of documents Injury Assistance believes should be in the files. 

The Elardo firm and Electric assert that they have produced all responsive, nonprivileged documents. Without reviewing their files, neither the Court nor Injury 

Assistance can determine whether the Elardo firm and Electric have fully complied with 

the subpoenas. This difficulty in confirming compliance with the subpoenas is 

compounded because it appears that the Elardo firm and Electric did not produce the 

documents “as they are kept in the ordinary course of business” or organize and label the 

documents to correspond to the categories in the subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 

(e)(1)(A). 

 

2

 This section of Rule 45 uses the same wording as Rule 26(b)(5)(A) in describing the procedures for asserting privilege. 

Case 2:14-cv-00847-BSB Document 70 Filed 12/09/14 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

 Therefore, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer to determine whether 

the non-parties have fully complied with the subpoenas. This may include the Elardo 

firm and Electric allowing Injury Assistance to review their files as they are maintained, 

with privileged and protected documents removed. If the parties are unable to resolve 

this matter, they must contact the Court to schedule a telephonic conference to discuss the 

matter. 

III. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 

 The Elardo firm and Electric argue that they are entitled to attorneys’ fees incurred 

in responding to the subpoenas and the motion to compel. (Doc. 60 at 6.) To support this 

claim for attorneys’ fees, they argue that Injury Assistance did not file a certification of 

its good faith efforts to meet and confer to resolve this matter, and that the subpoenas 

seek documents that are not material. The Court has already rejected these arguments 

because the record establishes Injury Assistance’s repeated attempts to meet and confer 

regarding the subpoena responses, and because the non-parties objections based on 

materiality are untimely and waived. Furthermore, the Court has determined that both 

sides bear responsibility for the break down in communications and their inability to 

resolve this discovery dispute. Therefore, the Court finds that an award of fees against 

Injury Assistance would be unjust. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Injury Assistance’s motion to compel (Doc. 51) is 

DENIED and the Elardo Firm’s and Electric’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 60) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Injury Assistance, the Elardo firm, and 

Electric must meet and confer to continue their attempts to resolve this dispute, 

particularly to determine a manner to confirm compliance with the subpoenas and to 

resolve any issues related to the necessity for the production of a privilege log. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-00847-BSB Document 70 Filed 12/09/14 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither Injury Assistance nor the non-parties 

may file any additional motions related to this discovery dispute without contacting the 

Court to request a telephonic conference to discuss any remaining disputed issues. 

 Dated this 9th day of December, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00847-BSB Document 70 Filed 12/09/14 Page 8 of 8