Cartessa Aesthetics LLC v. Aesthetics Biomedical Incorporated

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Cartessa Aesthetics LLC, No. CV-19-05827-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Aesthetics Biomedical Incorporated, 13 Defendant. [14] 15 On September 24, 2020, the parties filed a joint notice of discovery dispute. (Doc. 16 72.) On September 30, 2020, the Court heard oral argument. Having consider the parties’ 17 arguments and conducted additional research, the Court rules as follows. 18 1. Cartessa objects to ABM’s issuance of 38 subpoenas to various non-parties, 19 arguing that (1) ABM failed to provide prior notice of the subpoenas, as required by Rule 20 45(a)(4); (2) the subpoenas are unenforceable because each recipient is located more than 21 100 miles from the specified place of production, in violation of Rule 45(c)(2); and (3) the 22 subpoenas are “unduly burdensome,” are “intended to harass Cartessa’s customers,” and 23 constitute “an attempt to improperly shift the burden of discovery onto non-parties.” (Doc. 24 72 at 1.) 25 These objections are unavailing. As for the notice issue, Rule 45(a)(4) provides that 26 “[i]f the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored 27 information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is 28 served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be 1 served on each party.” Here, although ABM failed (due to an apparent clerical error) to 2 provide notice to Cartessa before serving some of the subpoenas—which was a violation 3 of Rule 45(a)(4)—the delay in notice was very short. ABM provided the subpoenas to a 4 third-party service company on September 8, which thereafter began serving them, and 5 Cartessa received notice on September 9. Notably, some of the subpoenas weren’t served 6 by the third-party company until September 10, meaning there was no Rule 45(a)(4) 7 violation in those instances. 8 Although “[s]ome courts insist on strict compliance with the notice requirement in 9 Rule 45(a)(4) . . . other courts have taken a less literal approach and will not quash a 10 subpoena where the opposing party has received notice of the subpoena in time to raise 11 objections and has not been prejudiced by the violation.” Littlefield v. NutriBullet, LLC, [12] 2018 WL 5264148 , *5 (C.D. Cal. 2018). For example, in In re William P. McCuan, 13 Debtor, 2018 WL 11205795 (M.D. Fla. 2018), the court declined to quash subpoenas 14 where service occurred on March 8 and notice was provided on March 9, holding that 15 although the issuing party “failed to comply with the technical requirements in Rule 16 45(a)(4),” there was no prejudice. Id. at *2. The Court finds this approach persuasive and 17 declines to quash the subpoenas in this case due to ABM’s partial non-compliance with 18 Rule 45(a)(4). Cartessa has now been afforded an opportunity to raise its substantive 19 objections to the subpoenas, which the Court rejects for the reasons discussed below, and 20 it would put form over substance to require ABM to re-issue the subpoenas simply to 21 remedy the Rule 45(a)(4) issue. 22 As for the 100-mile issue, Rule 45(c)(2)(A) provides that “[a] subpoena may 23 command . . . production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible 24 things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly 25 transacts business in person” but Rule 45(d)(2)(A) provides that “[a] person commanded 26 to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit 27 the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or 28 inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.” Many 1 courts have concluded these provisions may be harmonized by interpreting “Rule 2 45(c)(2)(A)’s 100-mile boundary [as] not apply[ing] where, as here, the subpoenaed person 3 is not instructed to also appear at the production location along with the requested 4 documents.” CresCom Bank v. Terry, 269 F. Supp. 3d 708, 713 (D.S.C. 2017). See also 5 Elsom v. Global Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4092020 , *2 (D. Or. 2018) (“[C]ases 6 from this circuit and others . . . have held that Rule 45(c)(2)(A)’s 100-mile boundary does 7 not apply where, as here, the subpoenaed person is not instructed to also appear at the 8 production location along with the requested documents.”) (citations omitted); Wahoo 9 Int’l, Inc. v. Phix Doctor, Inc., 2014 WL 3573400 , *4 (S.D. Ca. 2014) (“Although the 10 challenged subpoenas seek production of documents at a designated location in San Diego, 11 California, the subpoenas do not require any travel by the third parties. Accordingly, the 12 Court finds that Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the subpoenas on the ground that 13 they require compliance beyond the geographical limits specified in FRCP 45 is without 14 merit.”); Walker v. Ctr. for Food Safety, 667 F. Supp. 2d 133, 138 (D.D.C. 2009) 15 (“Counsel’s argument that the subpoena is invalid because it requires CFS to produce 16 documents at a location ‘well over the 100 mile limit . . .’ is flawed; the 100 mile limit 17 applies to travel by a subpoenaed person, but a person commanded to produce documents 18 ‘need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection.’ The subpoena can be 19 enforced.”) (citation omitted). The Court agrees with this approach, so Cartessa’s 10020 mile challenge is rejected. 21 The Court also clarifies that the recipients of ABM’s subpoenas need not appear in 22 person at the production address identified in the subpoenas (which is in Tempe, Arizona). 23 Instead, they may comply by emailing the requested materials to ABM’s counsel. See Fed. 24 R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(ii) (a district court must “quash or modify a subpoena that . . . requires 25 a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c)”) (emphasis 26 added). Cf. CresCom Bank, 269 F. Supp. 3d at 713-14 (even if the 100-mile rule applies 27 to document subpoenas, the proper remedy is not to quash the subpoena but to modify the 28 subpoena to allow the recipient “to produce the records either electronically or at a physical 1 || location closer to” the recipient); Sams v. GA W. Gate, LLC, 316 F.R.D. 693, 696-97 (N.D. 2|| Ga. 2016) (although party violated the 100-mile rule when issuing document subpoenas, 3|| “this violation does not require that the subpoena be quashed; the court may modify the subpoena... to allow service of responsive documents by email”). 5 Finally, as for Cartessa’s objections of burdensomeness and harassment, it is 6 || unnecessary to resolve the parties’ dispute over whether Cartessa has standing to raise such || objections under Rule 26. Even if Cartessa has standing, its objections fail on the merits 8 || for the reasons stated by ABM’s counsel during the hearing. 9 Accordingly, Cartessa’s objections to the subpoenas are overruled. ABM is ordered || to provide Cartessa with a copy of the documents it receives pursuant to the subpoenas. 11 || Such production must be made on a rolling basis within seven days of receipt. 12 2. In the joint notice, Cartessa also included a request to compel ABM to 13 || “produce its complete financial database from February 2017 through February 2020.” (Doc. 72 at 1-2.) For the reasons discussed during the hearing, that request is denied 15 || without prejudice. The Court is hopeful that ABM included the requested information in || the discovery materials it produced to Cartessa on September 30. If not, the parties are 17 || strongly encouraged to meet and confer. And if the parties remain at an impasse following || those meet-and-confer efforts, Cartessa may renew its request for relief. 19 Dated this Ist day of October, 2020. [20] 21 Lm ee” 22 f _o——— Dominic W, Lanza 23 United States District Judge [28] -4-