Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ceuric v. Tier One, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

May 17, 2018

MICHAEL CEURIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
TIER ONE, LLC, d/b/a TIER 1 RENTAL AND DISTRIBUTION, Defendant.

          ORDER

          ROBERT C. MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Michael Ceuric, has filed a Motion to Compel Subpoena Responses and Documents from BOS Solutions, Inc. (BOS) (ECF No. 74). Plaintiff contends that BOS, a non-party to this case, has information relevant to the pay practices of the Defendant, Tier One, LLC, as demonstrated by Tier One's responses to requests for production. BOS has filed a brief in opposition and Plaintiff has filed a reply brief.

         Standard of Review

         As a district court recently summarized:

Rule 45 sets forth the procedure that a party must follow to request the production of “designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in [the] possession, custody, or control” of a nonparty. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). “After being served with a subpoena duces tecum, a nonparty may object to producing any or all of the requested information by serving a written objection on the party or person designated in the subpoena ... within fourteen days after the subpoena is served....” In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., 300 F.R.D. [234, ] 238 [(E.D. Pa. 2014)] (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(2)(B)). As an alternative to serving objections on the subpoenaing party, a nonparty may file a timely motion for a court to quash the subpoena pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3).

RB v. Hollibaugh, 2017 WL 1196507, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2017) (footnotes omitted). In this case, BOS has elected to follow the first alternative, serving objections upon Plaintiff. The Rule states that:

If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In addition, pursuant to Rule 45(d)(1), “[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” and the Court has a responsibility to enforce this duty. Finally, Rule 45(c)(2) provides that “A subpoena may command (A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.”

         BOS presents the following objections: 1) the subpoena is procedurally defective because the requested location from production is more than 100 miles from where BOS regularly transacts business; 2) Plaintiff does not defend specific requests or address BOS's specific objections; 3) Tier One's status as an employer is not in dispute, so the requests are cumulative, unduly burdensome, overbroad, premature, harassing and would place significant expense on BOS; 4) the requests improperly interfere with Judge Kelly's management of a similar case, Kolasa v. BOS Solutions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 2:17-cv-1087 involving Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for BOS; and 5) the requests are overly broad because none of them are limited to Tier One employees who have opted into the case. Plaintiff argues that all of these objections are without merit.

         Place ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.