Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_16-mc-00005/USCOURTS-akd-3_16-mc-00005-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clark Equipment Company
Defendant
Doosan Infracore Construction Equipment America
Defendant
JCB, Inc
Interested Party
Miller Construction Equipment Sales, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

MILLER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT )

SALES, INC., )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, d/b/a )

DOOSAN INFRACORE CONSTRUCTION )

EQUIPMENT OF AMERICA, )

) No. 3:16-mc-0005-HRH

 Defendant. ) 

__________________________________________) 

O R D E R

Motion to Quash

JCB, Inc. moves to quash a subpoena issued to a nonparty.1 This motion is opposed.2

Oral argument was requested3 but is not deemed necessary. 

Background

Plaintiff is Miller Construction Equipment Sales, Inc. Defendant is Clark Equipment

Company d/b/a Doosan Infracore Construction Equipment America. Plaintiff was an

1Docket No.1 

2Docket No. 4. Defendant amended its opposition at Docket No. 18 to strike the first

five pages to bring the opposition within the Southern District of Georgia’s local rule that

limits briefs to 26 pages. This matter was transferred to the District of Alaska after the

briefing on the motion to quash was completed. 

3Docket No. 17. 

-1-

Case 3:16-mc-00005-HRH Document 34 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 6
authorized dealer of Doosan equipment from 2006 through 2014. In 2013, while still an

authorized Doosan dealer, plaintiff also became a JCB dealer. Plaintiff contends that

defendant constructively terminated its dealer arrangement with plaintiff. Defendant

contends that plaintiff voluntarily terminated the arrangement. One of the issues in the

underlying case4is whether plaintiff was using its “best efforts” to sell Doosan equipment in

2014, or whether it was primarily devoting its efforts to selling JCB equipment. Also at issue

are plaintiff’s claims for payment of the value of its Doosan business and its expenses directly

related to its Doosan dealership. 

In July 2015, pursuant to Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant served

a subpoena for a deposition and production of documents on JCB. Defendant requested that

JCB produce 1) documents related to JCB’s agreement with plaintiff (including the agreement

itself); 2) documents related to any communications between JCB and plaintiff about the

marketing, sale, and service of JCB equipment; 3) documents related to any communications

between JCB and plaintiff about the marketing, sale, and service of Doosan equipment; 4)

documents related to any communications between JCB and plaintiff about plaintiff’s

relationship with Doosan; 5) documents related to any communications between JCB and

plaintiff about JCB’s expectations/requirements of plaintiff as a JCB dealer; 6) documents

sufficient to show JCB’s sale of any products to plaintiff; 7) documents related to marketing

4Case No. 1:15-cv-0007-HRH. 

-2-

Case 3:16-mc-00005-HRH Document 34 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 6
strategies of plaintiff or JCB for competing against Doosan in Alaska; and 8) documents

relating to the financing of products sold to or by plaintiff.5 Defendant listed these same eight

categories as the topics for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of JCB. 

JCB now moves to quash the subpoena. 

Discussion

“The party who moves to quash a subpoena bears the ‘burden of persuasion’ under

Rule 45(c)(3).” ATS Products, Inc v. Champion Fiberglass, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 527, 531 (N.D. Cal.

2015) (quoting Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 637 (C.D. Cal. 2005). This “burden

is a heavy one.” In re Yassai, 225 B.R. 478, 484 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1998). 

JCB first argues that the subpoena should be quashed because it does not conform to

Rule 45‘s content requirements. Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iv) provides that a subpoena must “set out

the text of Rule 45(d) and (e).” Rule 45(d) relates to the protections provided to a person

subject to a subpoena and Rule 45(e) relates to the duties to respond to a subpoena. Although

the subpoena states that these provisions of Rule 45 are attached to the subpoena,6JCB

contends that these provisions were not attached. 

Assuming without deciding that defendant failed to comply with Rule 45‘s content

requirements, absent a showing of prejudice, such a failure is not a basis for quashing a

5Exhibit A at 8-9, Doosan’s Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to Take Deposition with Production

of Documents of JCB, which is appended to Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil

Action, Exhibit A, Motion to Quash, Docket No. 1. 

6Exhibit A, Motion to Quash, Docket No. 1. 

-3-

Case 3:16-mc-00005-HRH Document 34 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 6
subpoena. Elam v. Ryder Automotive Operations, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 413, 415 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). 

JCB cannot show any prejudice because JCB is obviously aware of the protections provided

by Rule 45, given its filing of the instant motion. 

JCB next argues that the subpoena should be quashed because it subjects it to undue

burden. “Rule 45 itself provides that ‘on timely motion, the court for the district where

compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that ... subjects a person to undue

burden.’” In re Subpoena of DJO, LLC, 295 F.R.D. 494, 497 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Fed. R.

Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv)). In determining whether a subpoena subjects a person to undue

burden, the court considers “‘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.’” Moon, 232

F.R.D. at 637 (quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 228 F.R.D. 111, 113

(D. Conn. 2005)). 

Here, the subpoena presents an undue burden on JCB, a nonparty, because defendant

could obtain the documents it seeks from plaintiff.7See id. at 638 (quashing nonparty

subpoena in part because the requesting party could “more easily and inexpensively obtain

the documents from” a party); see also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (“On motion or on its

7Andrew Miller, plaintiff’s general manager, avers that plaintiff “has custody and

control of all documents actually communicated to or from [plaintiff] in all eight of the

categories identified in the JCB Subpoena.” Declaration of Andrew H. Miller at ¶ 5, Exhibit

E, Motion to Quash, Docket No. 1. 

-4-

Case 3:16-mc-00005-HRH Document 34 Filed 03/24/16 Page 4 of 6
own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these

rules ... if it determines that ... the discovery ... can be obtained from some other source that

is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive”). The court is mindful that plaintiff

has so farrefused to produce any JCB-related discovery, but this refusal is one of the subjects

of defendant’s pending motion to compel in the underlying case. Although the court will

defer ruling on that motion until plaintiff’s pending motion for partial summary judgment

is resolved, it is clear to the court at this point that defendant’s motion to compel will at least

be granted in part. If plaintiff is compelled to produce JCB-related documents and if, after

that production, defendant believes that there are documents that would be exclusively in

JCB’s control, then defendant may be able to subpoena those documents. But allowing

defendant to subpoena all JCB-related documents from JCB, a non-party, when defendant

could obtain most of those documents from plaintiff would put an undue burden on JCB. 

“There is simply no reason to burden” JCB, a nonparty, “when the documents sought are in

possession of [a] party....” Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 577 (N.D. Cal.

2007). Thus, JBC’s motion to quash is granted. 

Turning then to JCB’s request for an award of attorney’s fees, Rule 45(d)(1) provides: 

A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a

subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue

burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The

court for the district where compliance is required must enforce

this duty and impose an appropriate sanction--which may

include lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees--on a party

or attorney who fails to comply. 

-5-

Case 3:16-mc-00005-HRH Document 34 Filed 03/24/16 Page 5 of 6
“Rule 45(d)(1) is discretionary.” Legal Voice v. Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th

Cir. 2013). “Merely losing a motion to compel does not expose a party to Rule 45 sanctions.” 

Id. “A court may, however, impose sanctions when a party issues a subpoena in bad faith,

for an improper purpose, orin a mannerinconsistent with existing law.” Id. The court is not

convinced that defendant issued the subpoena for an improper purpose or in a manner

inconsistent with existing law. Nor does there appear to have been any bad faith on

defendant’s part. Although it may have been advisable for defendant to wait to subpoena

JCB until afterresolution of defendant’s motion to compel inthe underlying case,defendant’s

concern about document retention was not unreasonable. JCB’s request for an award of

attorney’s fees is denied. 

Conclusion

JCB’s motion to quash8is granted, but its request for an award of attorney’s fees is

denied. 

Defendant’s motion for oral argument9 is denied.

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 24th day of March, 2016. 

/s/ H. Russel Holland 

United States District Judge

8Docket No. 1. 

9Docket No. 17. 

-6-

Case 3:16-mc-00005-HRH Document 34 Filed 03/24/16 Page 6 of 6