Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-mc-00055/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-mc-00055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

James E. Berwick; Affiliates in Oral and

Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MC 12-00055-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant's motion to compel compliance with subpoena duces

tecum to Roberta Jackson (doc. 1), Roberta Jackson's motion to quash the motion to compel

(doc. 11), defendant's reply in support of motion to compel and response to motion to quash

(doc. 12), and Jackson's reply (doc. 13). 

Defendant and plaintiff James Berwick disagree over the amount of business

interruption insurance benefits defendant owes plaintiff following a fire at plaintiff's oral

surgery office in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This dispute is currently being litigated in the

United States District Court for the District of Colorado. At the time of the fire, Jackson was

Dr. Berwick's primary accountant. In a report prepared for defendant, she estimated Dr.

Berwick's loss of income due to the fire to be $416,912. Plaintiffs list her as a non-retained

expert in the Colorado action. Defendant's subpoena seeks her entire file for plaintiffs from

five years before the fire and each year thereafter, all correspondence between Dr. Berwick

Case 2:12-mc-00055-FJM Document 14 Filed 07/11/12 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

27

28

- 2 -

or plaintiffs' representatives from five years before the fire and each year thereafter, all

documents mentioning a buy-sell agreement between Dr. Berwick and any other person, and

all documents related to the loss of income report. Jackson claims it would be an undue

burden for her to produce these documents, because they are in Colorado and she lives in

Arizona. She also claims some of the information does not exist or has been substantially

produced.

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., a party "may obtain discovery regarding

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." "The scope of

discovery under a Rule 45 subpoena to non-parties is the same as that permitted under Rule

26." Lewin v. Nackard Bottling Co., No. CV-10-8041-PCT-FJM, 2010 WL 4607402, at *1

n.1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 2010). Relevance "has been construed broadly to encompass any

matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any

issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351,

98 S. Ct. 2380, 2389 (1978). On the other hand, the court must quash or modify a subpoena

that "requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter" or "subjects a person to

undue burden," Rule 45(c)(3)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P, or "requires a person who is neither a party

nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides." Rule

45(c)(3)(A)(ii), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

 Compliance with the subpoena here does not require Jackson to personally travel to

Colorado. Jackson does not contend that the requested documents are protected by the

accountant-client privilege, but instead argues that compliance creates an undue burden.

"Whether a subpoena imposes upon a witness an 'undue burden' depends upon 'such

factors as relevance, the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the document

request, the time period covered by it, the particularity with which the documents are

described and the burden imposed.'" Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 169 F.R.D.

44, 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). "The burden of showing that a subpoena is unreasonable and

oppressive is upon the party to whom it is directed." Goodman v. United States, 369 F.2d

166, 169 (9th Cir. 1966). Jackson has not shown that the subpoena creates an undue burden.

Case 2:12-mc-00055-FJM Document 14 Filed 07/11/12 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

27

28

- 3 -

The documents requested are relevant to defendant's contention that Jackson's estimated loss

of income is inaccurate. Some documents, such as her first draft of the loss of income report,

are not available from other sources. The breadth of the document request and time period

covered are not overly broad. The documents requested are described with particularity. The

burden on Jackson is not unduly high and can be alleviated by requiring defendant to bear

the cost of compliance.

An order compelling production "must protect a person who is neither a party nor a

party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance." Rule 45(c)(2)(B)(ii),

Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendant "is willing to pay the reasonable cost of compliance to retrieve the

documents from storage." (Doc. 1 at 8). The best way to protect Jackson from significant

expense is to accept defendant's invitation to bear the cost of compliance.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Jackson's motion to quash (doc. 11).

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant's motion to compel (doc. 1). Jackson shall

comply with the subpoena. The parties shall cooperate with each other to minimize

inconvenience. Defendant shall be responsible for paying Jackson's reasonable expenses

resulting from compliance.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:12-mc-00055-FJM Document 14 Filed 07/11/12 Page 3 of 3