|
|---|
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Civil No. 99-MC-12 ADM/AJB AMWAY CORPORATION, Plaintiff v.
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL This matter is before the Court, Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, on
plaintiff's motion to compel discovery from Ashley Wilkes, a nonparty
[Docket No.7]. Hearing was held on April 22, 1999, at the U.S. Courthouse,
316 No. Robert St., St. Paul, MN 55101. Michael O. Freeman and Norbert F.
Kugele, Esqs. appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Chad W. Strathman, Esq.
appeared on behalf of Ashley Wilkes. Thomas J. Schumacher, Esq. appeared
on behalf of The Regents of the University of Minnesota. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Amway is involved in litigation with the Procter & Gamble Company and the Procter and Gamble Distributing Company [hereinafter P & G]. The lawsuit involves alleged tortious interference with Amway's business by P & G's sponsorship of internet web sites that cast Amway in a false light. Mr. Wilkes is not a party to the lawsuit but operates an internet site entitled "AMO-Way: The Nightmare Builders." Plaintiff requests that non-party Ashley Wilkes be compelled to produce, via subpoena duces tecum, computer records from both Mr. Wilkes' home and work computers. The requested computer records relate to Mr. Wilkes' e-mail communications which contain the word "Amway" or "Procter and Gamble" or the names of Procter and Gamble's attorneys. Plaintiff contends that these records are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the suit between Amway and P & G because Mr. Wilkes has been in contact with Sidney Schwartz, a websitte operator who allegedly has been retained by P & G as a consultant. Mr. Wilkes objects to the subpeonas on the basis that they are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are undly burdensome and violate his right to privacy. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the scope of discovery is broad. It encompasses information relevant to the suit or information likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 allows the court discretion to quash subpoenas that impose an undue burden. See "Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry and Hutchinson Co., 511F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975) affirming District Court's decision to quash subpoena duces tecum where requests for documents were sweeping in nature and compliance would have required extensive sifting of private corporate information of a nonparty. The Court finds that Amway has not shown that the information sought from Mr. Wilkes, a nonparty, is relevant or likely to lead to admissible evidence in its lawsuit against P & G. The fact that he has had some communications, the subject matter of which is unknown, with Schwartz, an alleged consultant of P & G, is insufficient to justify the burden on Mr. Wilkes of allowing the hard drives of his computers to be copied and searched. To the extent that there may be relevant e-mail communications between P & G and Mr. Wilkes, that information is obtainable from P & G. The motion to compel is denied. JUDGEMENT Based upon the file and documents contained therein, along with memoranda and arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is denied. [Docket No. 7] Dated: 4/26/99 Arthur J. Boylan United States Magistrate Judge Filed APR 26 1999 Francis E.Dosal, Clerk Judgement Entd |
Home Send E-Mail Read E-Mail Links Read Articles Visit Book Corner
This page updated Apr-28-99