Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00337/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00337-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright 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

Fairview Development Corporation, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Aztex Custom Homebuilders, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0337-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Response to Chipley Luxury Homes, Inc.’s

Objection and Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and Motion to Compel Response

to Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Motion to Compel”) (Dkt. 57). Non-party Chipley Luxury

Homes, Inc. (“Chipley”) was served with, objected to and moved to quash the subpoena

duces tecum issued by Plaintiffs. (See Dkt. 55.)

BACKGROUND

This is a copyright infringement case brought by Plaintiffs against Defendants Aztex

Custom Homebuilders and David Schmid regarding custom home building plans. (See Dkt. 43,

Second Am. Compl.) Plaintiffs issued a subpoena duces tecum upon Chipley, the

construction manager at the property that is the subject of this litigation. The subpoena

requests the following:

//

Case 2:07-cv-00337-SMM Document 62 Filed 05/16/08 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

1

 The Court finds that the Motion to Compel can be decided on the papers, and

therefore denies Plaintiffs’ and Chipley’s request for oral argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f).

- 2 -

1. A copy of [Chipley’s] complete file, including all contracts, subcontracts, 

agreements, drafts, amendments, memoranda of understanding, correspondence, e-mails,

notes, invoices, statements, payments, checks, building plans, details, specifications, shop

drawings, and all documents, relating to the design, construction, or supply of materials to

the real property located at Lot 8 Stanford Court, Paradise Valley, AZ, commonly known

as 6021 N. 37th Place, Paradise Valley, Arizona, 85253 (“Subject Property”).

2. A copy of all documents in your possession, care, custody, or control 

referring to relating to in any way [sic], to David Schmid, Aztex Custom Homebuilders,

LLC, or Five Star Development (or the parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates of either of

those companies), including correspondence, e-mails, memoranda, notes, memoranda of

telephone conversations or personal conversations, minutes of meetings, and interoffice

communications. The term “document” includes all copies of a document which contain

any additional writing, underlining, notes, deletions, or any other markings or notations,

or are otherwise not identical copies of the original.

3. A copy of any and all commercial general liability or similar insurance 

policies providing coverage for [Chipley] in relation to any design, construction,

management, or supervision activities Chipley performed at the Subject Property. The

documentation provided should include an indication of the time period for which each

such policy was in effect, the policy limits, any issues regarding exhaustion of policy

limits, deductibles, or self-insured retention on each such policy, and any additional

insured endorsements on each such policy.

(Dkt. 57, Pls.’ Mot. to Compel, Ex. 2 at 4:1-14.) Chipley has objected and moved to

quash the subpoena. (Dkt. 55.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court must quash or modify a subpoena that subjects a person to undue burden. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv). A court must quash a subpoena that “requires disclosure

of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies.” Id. at

45(c)(3)(A)(iii). An order requiring production must protect a non-party from significant

expense resulting from compliance. Id. at 45(c)(2)(B)(ii). 

DISCUSSION

Chipley requests that the Court quash the subpoena or address a fair reduction in

its scope at a hearing.1

 (Dkt. 59, Chipley’s Resp. to Mot. to Compel (“Chipley’s Resp.”)

2-3.) Chipley objects to the subpoena on the grounds that it is excessively costly and

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and requires the production of trade secrets. 

(Id. at 4-6.) The Court will address these contentions in turn.

Case 2:07-cv-00337-SMM Document 62 Filed 05/16/08 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

2

 Chipley’s failure to establish undue burden also dispenses of its contention that

Plaintiffs “should pursue additional documents from Defendants before unduly burdening

a non-party.” (Chipley’s Resp. at 5.) 

- 3 -

Chipley first asserts that compliance with the subpoena is expected to take Chipley

a minimum of three to five days to organize its response. Chipley asserts that compliance

would be costly because Chipley is a one-person operation and compliance would require

it to cease all operations while the documents are prepared. (Id. at 3-4.) The subpoena

requests Chipley’s entire file regarding the Subject Property. Plaintiffs assert that

Chipley’s involvement in the Subject Property lasted from December 2005 to mid-2007. 

(Pls.’ Mot. to Compel 7:22-8:2.) Chipley does not dispute this contention.

Chipley provides no indicia, beyond the assertion itself, as to why locating and

reviewing the file for the Subject Property would take three to five days. Although the

second request seeks all communications between Chipley and Defendants, Plaintiffs

agree that the second request is limited to correspondence arising out of or relating to the

Subject Property. (Id. at 7:8-17.) The Court will modify the subpoena as to the second

request. Chipley has otherwise failed to establish that the subpoena imposes an undue

burden.2

Chipley next contends that “[m]ost of the documents requested could not

conceivably be relevant to this action.” (Chipley’s Resp. 5.) Chipley again provides

nothing to support this assertion. The subpoena focuses on a single project, the Subject

Property, which is the subject of this litigation. The Court will not quash or modify the

subpoena on the basis of an unsupported assertion.

Chipley’s final assertion is that the subpoena requires the production of trade

secrets. The only example Chipley provides is “the price it pays for materials.” (Id.) A

court must quash a subpoena that “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected

matter, if no exception or waiver applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii). A witness

who withholds information on a claim of privilege or other protection must state the claim

expressly and support it with sufficient documentation to enable the demanding party to

Case 2:07-cv-00337-SMM Document 62 Filed 05/16/08 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 -

contest the claim. Id. at 45(d)(2)(A)(ii). Chipley provides no authority or support for the

proposition that the price it pays for materials is trade secret information. Chipley

therefore fails to establish that the subpoena requires disclosure of privileged or other

protected material.

Plaintiffs request attorney’s fees in connection with its Motion to Compel. The

only authority in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the imposition of sanctions

against a nonparty for failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum is Rule 45(e). 

Having objected, Chipley was not obligated to produce the subpoenaed documents until

Plaintiffs obtained an order directing compliance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). 

Sanctions are therefore premature at this point, but could be imposed if Chipley fails to

comply with this Order. See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492,

494-95 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees will therefore be denied at

this stage.

CONCLUSION

The Court will modify the subpoena to clarify that the second request is limited to

correspondence arising out of or relating to the Subject Property. The Court will

otherwise grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and order Chipley to respond to the

subpoena. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED modifying the subpoena duces tecum served on

Chipley to limit the second request to correspondence arising out of or relating to the

Subject Property.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 57).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Chipley to respond to the subpoena

duces tecum as modified.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00337-SMM Document 62 Filed 05/16/08 Page 4 of 4