Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-mc-00240/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-mc-00240-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, No. MISC.S-05-0240 MCE DAD

 

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. -

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

This matter came before the court on October 14, 2005, for

hearing on an order to show cause why a citation of contempt should

not issue against non-party Delta Construction Project Management,

Inc. (“Delta CPM”) due to its failure to respond to a Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 45 subpoena for documents issued by plaintiff Leprino

Foods Company (“Leprino”). Patrick T. Markham appeared on behalf of

plaintiff at the hearing. Laurence R. Phillips appeared on behalf of

defendant University Marelich Mechanical (“UMM”). There was no

appearance on behalf of Delta CPM, the entity to whom plaintiff’s

/////

Case 2:05-mc-00240-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 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

1 Delta CPM is a consultant of UMM and UMM intends to formally

designate Delta CPM as its expert in this action which is venued in

the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. While

Delta CPM and UMM may share some interests in this litigation, they

are separate entities and only UMM appeared at the hearing through

counsel.

2 Although it is not made clear in UMM’s written opposition,

the court presumes that counsel for UMM, who retained Delta CPM on

behalf of UMM, asserts these objections on behalf of its client UMM

and Delta CPM, who is UMM’s consultant and therefore arguably its

agent for purposes of the attorney-client privilege and work product

doctrine. In any event, counsel for UMM has identified no specific

communications or alleged work product material in this regard, much

less demonstrated how such communications or material fall within the

purview of the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.

2

subpoena is directed.1 Nor was there any appearance on behalf of

defendant Big-D Construction.

Having considered all written materials submitted with

respect to the motion, and after hearing oral argument, for the

reasons discussed more fully on the record during the hearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant UMM’s objections to the subpoena based on

assertions of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product

doctrine are overruled, those assertions being broad, general and

unsupported by any specific showing.2

2. Defendant UMM’s objections that the subpoena is

overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous are overruled

because UMM lacks standing to assert those objections. The subpoena

is not directed to UMM but to non-party Delta CPM who has failed to

appear in response to the court’s order to show cause. Further,

/////

/////

Case 2:05-mc-00240-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 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

3 UMM’s objections in this regard are based on the argument

that much, if not all, all of the information sought with the

subpoena will be the subject of discovery, particularly expert

discovery, in the Colorado action “in due course.” However, the

court finds that this argument weighs in favor of enforcing the

subpoena, not quashing it, especially since the subpoena issued from

this court more than eight months ago.

3

these boilerplate objections also are unsupported by any specific

showing.3

3. Delta CPM shall provide all documents responsive to

plaintiff’s subpoena within ten (10) days of being served with a copy

of this order. In this regard, plaintiff is directed to serve a copy

of this order on Delta CPM as soon as practicable and file proof of

such service with this court.

4. Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of a citation for

contempt is denied at this time.

DATED: October 17, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.civil\leprino.oah.101405

Case 2:05-mc-00240-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 10/18/05 Page 3 of 3