Case Name: The HUNTE CORPORATION, Appellee, v. Jodell MARTINELLI; Stephanie Booth; Melia Perry; Abbigail King; Nicole Kersanty; Ruth Ross; Elliot Moskow; Karen Galatis, Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-29
Citations: 446 F. App'x 818
Docket Number: No. 11-1290
Parties: The HUNTE CORPORATION, Appellee, v. Jodell MARTINELLI; Stephanie Booth; Melia Perry; Abbigail King; Nicole Kersanty; Ruth Ross; Elliot Moskow; Karen Galatis, Appellants.
Judges: Before RILEY, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 818–819

Head Matter:
The HUNTE CORPORATION, Appellee, v. Jodell MARTINELLI; Stephanie Booth; Melia Perry; Abbigail King; Nicole Kersanty; Ruth Ross; Elliot Moskow; Karen Galatis, Appellants.
No. 11-1290.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 19, 2011.
Filed: Dec. 29, 2011.
Kyle Hallstrom, William L. Thorpe, Fennemore & Craig, Phoenix, AZ, John R. Lightner, Baird & Lightner, Springfield, MO, for Appellee.
Robert B. Carey, Donald Andrew St. John, Phoenix, AZ, Patrick Howard, Simon Bayne Paris, Philadelphia, PA, James J. Rosemergy, Carey & Danis, St. Louis, MO, for Appellants.
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Elliot Moskow and Karen Galatis (collectively, "appellants") served a subpoena on The Hunte Corporation ("Hunte") to obtain discovery to aid them in certain litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Hunte, as a non-party to the litigation in Arizona, sought a protective order, and the district court found "it appropriate to shift all reasonable and necessary costs Hunte incurs in complying with the subpoena" to appellants. Appellants filed a motion for partial reconsideration and suggested three factors for the district court to consider in determining whether appellants should bear the costs of discovery. The district court analyzed the issue using the three factors appellants suggested, but maintained its initial position that appellants must bear the costs of discovery. Appellants now appeal.
We review discovery rulings for "gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness." Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 477 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc., 352 F.3d 358, 360 (8th Cir.2003)). Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, we find no abuse of discretion. Therefore, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and deny Hunte's motions to take judicial notice and enlarge the record on appeal.
. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.