United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
GEORGIA MOBILE DENTAL, LLC, ET AL.
MARK NAPPER, ET AL.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena (R.
Doc. 31) filed on August 9, 2019. The motion is opposed. (R.
Doc. 34). The Court held a telephone conference with the
parties with respect to this motion on August 15, 2019. (R.
motion concerns a Notice of Deposition and Subpoena Duces
Tecum seeking the production of certain documents and
deposition testimony from Dr. Louis Lefebvre on August 16,
2019 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (R. Doc. 31-3). The scope of
documents sought includes correspondence, contracts,
marketing communications, and demand letters concerning
Defendants’ involvement in the mobile dentistry
seek an order quashing the subpoena or otherwise modifying
the subpoena to allow Defendants to designate documents and
testimony as “confidential information” pursuant
to the protective order in this action. (R. Doc. 21).
Defendants argue that such an order is required in light of
the non-disclosure provision in an agreement entered into
between two of the defendants, Care Services Management, LLC
and Marquis Health Systems, LLC, and Dr. Louis Lefebvre and
Magnolia Dental Service, LLC. (R. Doc. 31-4,
“Agreement”). Defendants also assert that the
information requested is irrelevant and outside the scope of
opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Lefebvre is a key
witness who introduced Plaintiffs to the defendant Mark
Napper, served as a conduit for Mr. Napper to solicit new
mobile dental businesses across the United States, and
operated a mobile dental business similar to the one at issue
in this action. (R. Doc. 34 at 1-3).
have limited standing to quash subpoenas served on
non-parties pursuant to Rule 45. See Frazier v.
RadioShack Corp., No. 10-855, 2012 WL 832285, at *1
(M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2012) (“[A] plaintiff cannot
challenge a Rule 45 subpoena directed to a third party on the
basis that it violates another person’s privacy rights
. . ., that the subpoena is overly broad, or that the
subpoena seeks information that is irrelevant because only
the responding third party can object and seek to quash a
Rule 45 subpoena on those grounds.”). Nevertheless, a
party has standing to move for a protective order pursuant to
Rule 26(c) seeking to limit the scope of discovery, even if
the party does not have standing pursuant to Rule 45(d) to
bring a motion to quash a third-party subpoena.
Singletary v. Sterling Transp. Co., 289 F.R.D. 237,
240 n. 2 (E.D. Va. 2012); Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v.
Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429 (M.D. Fla.
2005); Washington v. Thurgood Marshall Acad., 230
F.R.D. 18, 22 (D.D.C. 2005).
26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the
court to issue a protective order after a showing of good
cause “to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)’s “good
cause” requirement indicates that the party seeking a
protective order has the burden “to show the necessity
of its issuance, which contemplates a particular and specific
demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and
conclusory statements.” In re Terra Int'l,
Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting
United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n.3
(5th Cir. 1978)).
Court has reviewed the scope of information sought in the
subpoena and has considered the arguments of the parties. The
Court finds the information sought falls within the scope of
discovery as defined by Rule 26(b)(1). As there has been no
objection to the subpoena by Dr. Lefebvre, the Court will not
limit the material requested or the scope of inquiry in the
deposition as presenting any undue burden. Although the
actual responsive materials are not before the Court, and in
order to ensure that the deposition proceeds as scheduled,
the Court finds good cause to require all deposition
testimony and documents to be designated “confidential
information” pursuant to the protective order in this
action (R. Doc. 21), subject to later challenges in
accordance with the protective order. Before any such
challenge is made, the parties must first confer regarding
the specific documents and/or testimony at issue. Finally,
this order shall constitute a “valid order of . . . [a]
court of competent jurisdiction” for the purposes of
allowing disclosure of the information subject to the
subpoena in accordance with the nondisclosure provision of
the Agreement. (See R. Doc. 31-4 at 6).
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that
Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena (R. Doc. 31) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
consistent with the body of this Order. The parties shall
bear their own costs.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel must immediately
provide a copy of this Order to Dr. Louis Lefebvre and his