Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ROTOWORKS INTERNATIONAL PLAINTIFF

LIMITED

v. Civil No. 07-05009

GRASSWORKS USA, LLC

GRASSWORKS!!! L.L.C.

BOBBY UMBERSON

LINDA K. REED DEFENDANTS

INTERIM ORDER

NOW on this the 28th day of March, 2007, comes on for

consideration Defendants’, GrassWorks USA, LLC, GrassWorks!!!

L.L.C., Bobby Umberson, and Linda K. Reed, Motion to Quash Six

Subpoenas (document #33) and Motion for Protective Order (document

#35) filed on March 27, 2007, and from said motions, and the

expedited response thereto, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. On March 15 and 16, 2007, Plaintiff served six subpoenas

on various non-party telephone companies, requesting records of

Defendants’ telephone calls during specified time periods. Pursuant

to these subpoenas, the information sought therein must be provided

to Plaintiff’s counsel by April 1, 2007. 

2. Defendants claim that the requested telephone records

contain confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets

within the meaning of Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-601(4). Consequently,

Defendants request that all such records be subject to a protective

order, limiting the use and disclosure of the requested information

exclusively to Plaintiff’s counsel.

3. Defendants further claim that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

45(b)(2), five of the six subpoenas were served outside the

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 38 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
geographical limits of the Court’s jurisdiction and are,

consequently, unenforceable under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 governs the issuance of subpoenas to

non-parties and states in pertinent part:

(b) Service. [...] a subpoena may be served at any

place within the district of the court by which it is

issued, or at any place without the district that is

within 100 miles of the place of the deposition,

hearing, trial, production, or inspection specified

in the subpoena [...]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2). Defendants point to this rule to support

their assertion that the five subpoenas at issue were not properly

served on the non-party telephone companies. 

5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) provides that a person commanded to

produce and permit inspection of documents may, within 14 days after

service of a subpoena, serve upon the party or attorney designated

in the subpoena written objection to such inspection.

Significantly, the telephone companies have not, to date, objected

to the issuance, form, or service of the subject subpoenas.

Moreover, as demonstrated in Plaintiff’s response, the telephone

companies agreed to service of these subpoenas. 

6. The Court finds that Defendants lack standing to challenge

the service of the subject subpoenas, as such a challenge should be

brought by the non-parties to whom the subpoenas are directed. The

five subpoenas at issue have not been challenged by the recipient

telephone companies and, in fact, these companies agreed to the

method of service. Thus, the service of the challenged subpoenas

was effective.

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 38 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
7. The Court further finds that, in order to assess the nature

of the requested telephone records and determine whether they should

be subject to a protective order, it will review all such records in

camera. This review will assist the Court in resolving the issues

raised in Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (document #35).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Motion to Quash Six Subpoenas

(document #33), filed on March 27, 2007 by Defendants, should be,

and hereby is, denied; and, until the Court issues an order

addressing and disposing of the issues raised in Defendants’ Motion

for Protective Order (document #35), the telephone records received

by Plaintiff in response to its third-party subpoenas should not, at

this time, be reviewed by either Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel,

but rather should be immediately delivered to the Court in camera

for its review of the subject materials.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

 JIMM LARRY HENDREN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 38 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>