Filed: Aug. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER (Matter Pending in M.D. Tenn. under Docket No. 3:13-cv-1196). JOHN K. LARKINS, III , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation's ("IBM's") motion to compel nonparty Alexander Proudfoot Company ("Proudfoot") to comply with a nonparty subpoena duces tecum (the "Subpoena"). 1 [Doc. 1.] I have considered the briefs and heard oral argument on the motion, and for the reasons stated at the August 5, 2016 hearing, the Cour
Summary: ORDER (Matter Pending in M.D. Tenn. under Docket No. 3:13-cv-1196). JOHN K. LARKINS, III , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation's ("IBM's") motion to compel nonparty Alexander Proudfoot Company ("Proudfoot") to comply with a nonparty subpoena duces tecum (the "Subpoena"). 1 [Doc. 1.] I have considered the briefs and heard oral argument on the motion, and for the reasons stated at the August 5, 2016 hearing, the Court..
More
ORDER
(Matter Pending in M.D. Tenn. under Docket No. 3:13-cv-1196).
JOHN K. LARKINS, III, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation's ("IBM's") motion to compel nonparty Alexander Proudfoot Company ("Proudfoot") to comply with a nonparty subpoena duces tecum (the "Subpoena").1 [Doc. 1.] I have considered the briefs and heard oral argument on the motion, and for the reasons stated at the August 5, 2016 hearing, the Court ORDERS that on or before August 19, 2016, Proudfoot produce to IBM documents responsive to Request Nos. 17, 18, and 19 that are within the custody of Proudfoot employee Karin Harrison. Proudfoot shall use the keywords agreed to by the parties in searching for responsive documents, see Doc. 1-9 at 6-7, and shall restrict the period to between January 1, 2010 and June 1, 2011. If IBM determines that the documents produced from Ms. Harrison's custody are insufficient, Proudfoot may request that this Court order the production of additional documents from up to two additional Proudfoot custodians.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any documents that Proudfoot produces be subject to a protective order that, inter alia, protects against the unrestricted disclosure or use of such documents, contains a "clawback provision" pertaining to the production of privileged or work-product documents, and affords Proudfoot protection under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) against waiver of privilege. As discussed at the hearing, IBM shall prepare and send the initial draft of the proposed protective order to counsel for Proudfoot on or before August 8, 2016.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after documents have been produced, IBM and Proudfoot may submit motions for cost-shifting "significant expenses resulting from [Proudfoot's] compliance" with the Subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii). The Court encourages the parties to attempt to reach agreement on their own and "expects that [Proudfoot's] account of its claimed expenses will be specific and lean." See United States v. McGraw-Hill Cos., 302 F.R.D. 532, 536-37 (C.D. Cal. 2014). To the extent that Proudfoot seeks reimbursement of its expenses, Proudfoot's motion "must include a careful accounting of all expenses, how they `resulted from compliance,' and an explanation as to their reasonableness." Id. at 537.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
