Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03695/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03695-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERRENCE P. COLLINGSWORTH,

et al.,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

} 

Case No.: 2:11-cv-3695-RDP

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The court has before it the Report and Recommendation of Special Master Regarding

Various Third Party Subpoenas (Doc. #409) filed on November 19, 2015. Pursuant to the Order

(Doc. #129) of May 28, 2014 all objections have been timely filed and briefed (Docs. #414, 415,

419, 426, 434, 435), and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #409) is now before the court for

review.1

The Report (Doc. #409) addresses several specific subpoenas that (1) have been served on

third parties in this action and (2) are currently before the Special Master on various motions. 

Specifically, subpoenas have been served upon First United Bank (“First United”), Daniel A.

Kovalik (“Kovalik”), International Rights Advocates (“IRA”), and William Wichmann

(“Wichmann”). (Doc. #409, ¶ 2). Those subpoenas are also the subject of four separate

miscellaneous cases that are currentlybefore this court. (See 2:14-mc-621-RDP; 2:14-mc-681-RDP;

2:14-mc-1346-RDP; 2:15-mc-645-RDP). On July 1, 2015, the Special Master recommended a set

1 Although this case has been stayed pending interlocutoryreviewofthe MemorandumOpinion and Order (Doc.

#417) of December 7, 2015, the parties have agreed that certain aspects of discovery, including review of the Report and

RecommendationRegarding Various Third Party Subpoenas (Doc. #409), should continue forward during the pendency

of the interlocutory appeal. (Docs. #421, 433).

FILED

 2016 Jan-22 AM 11:47

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP Document 439 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 9
of procedures for handling third party subpoenas. (Doc. #266). Those procedures were adopted by

the court on August 13, 2015. (Doc. #291).

The parties have attempted to narrow the scope of the subpoenas served on First United and

Mr. Kovalik. (Doc. #409, ¶¶ 5-7). Except to the extent expressly indicated below, those attempts

have been unsuccessful and, therefore, it has become necessary for the Special Master and this court

to intervene. (Doc. #409, ¶ 8). The court addresses each of the outstanding subpoenas in turn.

First United Bank

First United is one of the financial institutions with which Defendants maintain bank

accounts, and is Conrad & Scherer’s principal bank. (Doc. #409, ¶ 9; Doc. #415 at 3). Plaintiff

served First United with a subpoena in the Southern District of Florida on or about April 28, 2014. 

(Doc. #409, ¶ 10). Briefing was completed on a motion to quash and/or for a protective order filed

byDefendants and the casewastransferred to the Northern District of Alabama, 2:14-mc-1346-RDP. 

(Doc. #409, ¶¶ 10, 11). The pending motion was filed by Defendants. No motion was filed by First

United. Defendants argue that the subpoena seeks privileged and confidential business and financial

information regarding the Defendants’ bank account at First United and that the request is

duplicative, overbroad, and seeks irrelevant information. (Doc. #409, ¶ 12; Doc. #426 at 11). 

The Special Master has recommended that the motion to quash and/or for a protective order

be denied, subject to the Special Master’s in camera review to consider objections based on

privilege, work product and/or relevance based on a document-by-document basis. (Doc. #409, ¶

15). Defendants object to that recommendation, arguing that: (1) the time period covered by the

subpoena should be narrowed; (2) the substantive scope of financial documents sought should be

narrowed; and (3) restrictions set out by the court regarding privilege logs should be considered.

(Doc. #415 at 1-2). Drummond counters that the third party subpoena procedures adopted by the

2

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP Document 439 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 9
court on August 13, 2015 are sufficient to address the relevancy objections without need for further

intervention. (Doc. #291). Drummond further argues that the requested subpoena is, in actuality,

not broad enough because it was drafted before Drummond became aware of all of the witnesses

who had received payments. (Doc. #426 at 9). Drummond asserts that this broad approach to

discovering the money transfers in Colombia or Panama is necessary, in light of money laundering

schemes alleged. (Doc. #426 at 9). 

Having carefully considered the objections and briefs related thereto, the Report and

Recommendation (Doc. #409) is ADOPTED and APPROVED as to the subpoena served on First

United Bank. First United Bank SHALL produce responsive documents within twenty-one (21)

days of the date of this Order, at which time the Special Master will provide the documents to

Defendants for review and objection as to work product, privilege, and/or relevance in accordance

with the order of July 6, 2015. (Doc. #268). The Special Master will then review those documents

in camera. A separate order will be entered in case 2:14-mc-1346-RDP denying the pending motion

to quash and closing that miscellaneous case.2

Daniel Kovalik

On or before August 16, 2013, Daniel Kovalik, then the Associate General Counsel for the

United Steelworkers Union and former co-counsel with Collingsworth in Drummond I, was served

with a subpoena for documents in the Western District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. #409, ¶¶ 17, 18). 

After a motion to quash and/or for protective order was filed by the Defendants, the case was

transferred to the Northern District of Alabama on November 14, 2013. (Doc. #409, ¶¶ 18, 19). 

2 Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena to First United Bank and/or Motion for Protective Order (Doc. #1)

in 2:14-mc-1346-RDP is also due to be denied because Defendants have no personal right or privilege in their financial

records held by First United, and therefore lack standing to contest the subpoena. See United States v. Willis, 759 F.2d

1486, 1498 (11th Cir. 1985) (“[A] bank depositor has no interest in the bank’s records of his accounts.”).

3

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP Document 439 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 9
Briefing was completed on the motion to quash and/or for a protective order on November 6, 2013. 

(Doc. #409, ¶ 18). The pending motion filed by Defendants argues that the subpoena seeks

privileged and attorney work product information and imposes an undue and duplicative burden on

Defendants and Mr. Kovalik. (Doc. #409, ¶ 20). 

While Mr. Kovalik did not make any filings regarding the subpoena before the Special

Master, he did file objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master in this court

on December 11, 2015. (Doc. #419). And he had previously served Defendants with objections to

the subpoena pursuant to Rule 45 on or about August 22, 2013. (Doc. #419 at 2). Those objections

raised the following issues: (1) that, because Plaintiff acknowledged that the information it was

seeking was within Defendant Collingsworth’s possession and control, discovery from Defendant

Collingsworth should be exhausted before documents were subpoenaed from Mr. Kovalik; (2) that

the subpoena exceeded the permissible scope of discovery as defined by the parties’ and the court’s

scheduling order; (3) that the requested production would subject Mr. Kovalik to undue burden; and

(4) that the subpoena would require production of documents protected by attorney/client privilege

and/or the work product doctrine. (Doc. #419 at 2). 

With respect to his objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master, Mr.

Kovalik argues: (1) he has not consented to the Subpoena Procedures agreed upon by the parties and

approved by the court (Doc. #291); (2) he was not involved in any discussions on the possible

narrowing of the subpoena; and (3) he served Defendants with objections to the subpoena itself in

accordance with Rule 45(d)(2)(B) on August 22, 2013. (Doc. #419 at 6-10). In addition, Defendants

have objected to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation regarding the Kovalik subpoena

on these additional grounds: (1) the Report and Recommendation incorrectly states that Kovalik did

not file any objections; (2) the time period of the subpoena is too broad and should be limited to

4

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP Document 439 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 9
January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2013; (3) no third party subpoena recipient should be

required to log documents post January 1, 2013 or be required to produce categories of documents

specifically excluded from discovery among the parties; and (4) the documents requested are

overbroad and seek privileged and work product material. (Doc. #415 at 5-9). Drummond counters

by asserting that neither Mr. Kovalik or Defendants have presented enough information about the

requested documents to allow for proper examination of the claims of protection. (Doc. #426 at 11-

12). 

After careful review of the objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Special

Master (Doc. #409) on issues related to the subpoena to Daniel Kovalik, the Report and

Recommendation is OVERRULED as follows:

• The Motion to Quash filed by Defendants (not Mr. Kovalik) in 2:14-mc-681-RDP is due to

be denied. Defendants lack standing to assert (and therefore cannot properly assert) a claim

that production of documents would infringe on the rights of Mr. Kovalik. Moreover,

Defendants’ objections on the grounds of privilege and protected work product are moot by

operation of the court’s memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. #417) regarding the crimefraud exception. A separate order will be entered in the miscellaneous case denying the

motion and closing the case.

• The Subpoena Procedures (Doc. #266) agreed upon by the parties do not currently apply to

the subpoena issued upon Mr. Kovalik. Mr. Kovalik never consented to the Subpoena

Procedures. (Doc. #419 at 9). On or about August 13, 2013 (two years before the Subpoena

Procedures were agreed upon by the parties), Mr. Kovalik served Defendants with Rule 45

objections to that subpoena. The court has not been made aware of any motion to compel

filed by Plaintiffs in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The court has not been made

5

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP Document 439 Filed 01/22/16 Page 5 of 9
aware of any request or attempt by Plaintiffs to have Mr. Kovalik consent to the Subpoena

Procedures adopted by this court and the parties to this action. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED

to meet and confer with Mr. Kovalik and/or his counsel in an effort to resolve the issues

presented by the third party subpoena.

International Rights Advocates

International Rights Advocates (“IRA”) is a non-profit organization created to “promote[]

human rights and corporate accountability through legal advocacy and capacity building.” (Doc.

#409, ¶ 25). In February 2008, IRA became affiliated with Conrad & Scherer LLP in human rights

litigation. (Doc. #409, ¶ 25). And at the time a notice of intent to serve subpoena was issued to IRA,

Collingsworth was the Executive Director of the IRA. (Doc. #409, ¶ 25). 

On August 16, 2013, IRA filed a motion to quash and/or for a protective order in the District

of Colombia on the grounds that the subpoena was overbroad and sought privileged material and

attorney work product. (Doc. #409, ¶¶ 26, 28). Briefing was completed on October 24, 2013 and

a hearing was held by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on February 25, 2014. (Doc. #409,

¶ 27). Magistrate Robinson entered a Minute Order on February 26, 2014 denying the motion

without prejudice. (Doc. #409, ¶ 27). The case was then transferred to the Northern District of

Alabama. (Doc. #409, ¶ 27). The Special Master has recommended that IRA be required to produce

the subpoenaed documents to the Special Master for in camera review subject to a limitation that

IRA not be required to re-produce documents already produced by Defendants in this litigation. 

(Doc. #409, ¶ 31).

On December 4, 2015, IRA filed objections to the Report and Recommendation of the

Special Master. Specifically, IRA argues that the subpoena, as issued, should be modified in the

following respects: (1) the time period for the subpoena should be limited; (2) the subpoena to a third

6

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP Document 439 Filed 01/22/16 Page 6 of 9
party should not be permitted to circumvent limitations to discovery agreed upon by the parties,

particularly as targeted to privileged documents; and (3) the requests are overbroad. (Doc. #414 at

1-2). Drummond counters by asserting that: (1) the time period should not be further limited because

IRA’s predecessor entity was the International Labor Rights Fund (“ILRF”) which involved

Collingsworth’s human rights cases; there is information that the predecessor was involved with

witness payments; (2) the landscape of the case has changed since the court’s entry of the October

15, 2014 order (Doc. #151), uncovering additional individuals who may have been involved with

payments to witnesses; and (3) Drummond has suggested limitations of the subpoena in the past, but

repeated misstatements to Drummond and the court prevent Drummond from trusting IRA. (Doc.

#426 at 13-17). 

After careful review of the objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Special

Master (Doc. #409) on issues related to the subpoena to International Rights Advocates, the Report

and Recommendation is ADOPTED and APPROVED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART

as follows:

• The time period for the subpoena shall be limited to begin in January 2005.3

• Although the court has heretofore established a discovery log cut-off date ofJanuary 1, 2013

(Doc. #151), there is no question that the case has expanded and changed since the time that

order was entered. As the subpoena was served on or about August 1, 2013, that will serve

as the discoverycut-off date for this subpoena to be expanded, if necessary, following review

of responsive documents.

3 Depending upon what is discovered when these documents are reviewed, the court will consider a properly

supported request to expand this time period to January 2003.

7

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP Document 439 Filed 01/22/16 Page 7 of 9
• All remaining objections are overruled. The documents responsive to the subpoena, as

limited herein, shall be produced to the Special Master for in camera review. International

Rights Advocates SHALL produce responsive documents within twenty-one (21) days of

the date of this Order, at which time the Special Master will provide the documents to

Defendants for review and objection as to work product, privilege, and/or relevance in

accordance with the order of July 6, 2015. (Doc. #268). A separate order will be entered in

case 2:14-mc-621-RDP denying the pendingmotion to quash and closing that miscellaneous

case.

William Wichmann

William Wichmann worked as a contract partner at Conrad & Scherer from 2005 to 2009. 

(Doc. #409, ¶ 33). On or about October 7, 2014, Plaintiff issued a notice of intent to serve a

subpoena for documents on Wichmann. The documents sought pertain to a lawsuit pending in state

court in Broward County, Florida. (Doc. #415 at 9). The Defendants filed a motion to quash in the

Southern District of Florida. (Doc. #409, ¶ 34). The motion to quash contends that the subpoena

seeks documents that are privileged, irrelevant, confidential, and covered by attorney work product. 

(Doc. #409, ¶ 35; Doc. #415 at 10). The subpoena was transferred to this court on April 16, 2015

as case number 2:15-mc-645-RDP. (Doc. #409, ¶ 37). Wichmann has not filed any motions or

objections related to the subpoena. (Doc. #409, ¶ 38).

Defendants argue that the Wichmann subpoena is overlybroad in a varietyof ways, primarily

because “the Wichmann case in Broward County has nothing to do with the Drummond or Dole

matters, and there are only some very peripheral documents related to witness issues in the Dole,

Drummond, and Chiquita cases.” (Doc. #415 at 10). Defendants seek to have Drummond narrow

the subpoena due to concerns of overbreadth and privilege. (Doc. #415 at 14-18). But they do not

8

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP Document 439 Filed 01/22/16 Page 8 of 9
object to Request Nos. 4 through 8 of the subpoena. (Doc. #415). They do object to requests

seeking all documents and privilege logs produced in the Wichmann case and argue that Drummond

should be subject to the Protective Order in the Wichmann case. (Doc. #415 at 18). Drummond

counters that because the requests seek some relevant information, we should err on the side of

requiring production. (Doc. #426 at 18-19). With regard to the privilege logs, Drummond argues

that comparison of logs may reveal evidence of fraudulent concealment. (Doc. #426 at 19). 

After careful review of the objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Special

Master (Doc. #409) on issues related to the subpoena to William Wichmann, the Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED and APPROVED. The only reasonable way to assess the

relevancy, overbreadth, and privilege concerns advanced byDefendants is to have the Special Master

review the documents in camera after Defendants review those documents in accordance with the

Subpoena Procedures (Doc. #266). A separate order will be entered in case 2:15-mc-645-RDP

denying the pending motion to quash and closing that miscellaneous case.4

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2016.

___________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4 Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena or in the Alternative Motion for Protective Order (Docs. #1, 6) in

2:15-mc-645-RDP may also be due to be denied on the question of standing, as William Wichmann has filed no

objections to the subpoena or to the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master (Doc. #409). However the court

makes no independent review of that issue at this time.

9

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP Document 439 Filed 01/22/16 Page 9 of 9