Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02757/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02757-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CIRCUIT EXPRESS, INC., an Arizona

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD JOYCE, a citizen of Arizona,

NORM LEBLANC, a citizen of Arizona,

and CHARLES OSTERING, a citizen of

Arizona,

Defendants.

 Case No. CV 06-2757-PHX-JAT

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to join Streamline Circuits Corp. as a

third- party defendant in this action. Plaintiff opposes joinder. Plaintiff seeks joinder for two

main reasons: 1) so Streamline can object to discovery requests if it so chooses; and 2) so

Defendants can show that Streamline already possessed the information that is at issue in this

case. Obviously, if Defendants, as third-party plaintiffs, wished to sue Streamline, they could

do so. However, Defendants seek to have Streamline participate as a defendant.

With respect to Defendants' first basis for joinder, any discovery request targeted to

Streamline directly can be objected to by Streamline. Any discovery requests targeted to

Defendants (now employees of Streamline) can be objected to by the employees if there is a

legal basis for making such objection. Streamline does not need to be joined as a defendant

to allow objections. Thus, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2)(i) is not met.

With respect to the second basis for joinder, Defendants may seek discovery from

Case 2:06-cv-02757-JAT Document 41 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 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

-2-

Streamline. The Court does not agree that Streamline must be joined in the case as a party to

obtain the information at issue. Therefore, the Court does not find this to be a valid basis for

joinder. 

Moreover, as Plaintiff points out in its response, information that has been in

Streamline's possession since before this lawsuit is not affected by the Restraining Order, nor

is it the subject of the sought preliminary injunction. Thus, if Defendants' allegation that

Streamline pre-possessed this information is true, Streamline and its employees could continue

to use their pre-possessed information regardless of the outcome of this case. Therefore, the

Court does not find Streamline to be necessary to this litigation.

Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1) provides for compulsory joinder

if complete relief cannot be accorded among the parties. Defendants have failed to show how

complete relief could not be had. As Plaintiff notes, Plaintiff is seeking remedies from only

Defendants based on Plaintiff and defendants previous employment relationship. No relief is

sought from Streamline. 

Additionally, Defendants have not shown that they could be subjected to multiple

lawsuits or inconsistent obligations if Streamline is not a party. Therefore, they have not meet

the final test of Rule 19(a)(2)(ii).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Join Streamline Circuits (Doc. #25) is denied.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02757-JAT Document 41 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2