Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Knight v. Knight

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

September 17, 2019

Knight et al

          S. Maurice Hicks, Jr., Judge



         Before the Court are several related motions: (1) a Motion For Protective Order And Order For Costs filed by Knight Oil Tools, LLC and HMC Leasing LLC (collectively “KOT”) [Rec. Doc. 118], non-parties in the above captioned lawsuit, Plaintiff, Bryan Knight's Opposition [Rec. Doc. 122], Defendant, Mark Knight's Opposition [Rec. Doc. 136], and a Reply filed by KOT [Rec. Doc. 138]; (2) Defendant, Mark Knight's Motion To Quash And Motion For Protective Order [Rec. Doc. 135] and Plaintiff's Opposition [Rec. Doc. 143] (3) a Motion To Consolidate Hearing Dates filed by KOT [Rec. Doc. 137]; and, (4) a Motion To Strike Motion For Protective Order filed by Plaintiff, Bryan Knight [Rec. Doc. 139] and Opposition filed by Defendant Mark Knight [Rec. Doc. 142].

         1. KOT's Motion For Protective Order

         KOT contends it was served with subpoenas by Plaintiff, Bryan Knight, to produce “personal financial and confidential commercial business records.” KOT further contends that while it is prepared to produce hundreds of documents, it will not do so without a Protective Order. KOT asserts that because the parties cannot agree to such an order, it moves the Court to allow it to use the Protective Order attached to the motion as “Exhibit C.” R. 118-4. KOT also seeks an order of reimbursement for any costs incurred in acquiring any software licenses for responding to the subpoenas. In the alternative, KOT seeks an in camera review of the records it must produce to determine if they fall within the realm of being commercial and personal confidential and financial in nature.

         In his opposition, Plaintiff contends that Mark Knight and his co-defendants extensively utilized KOT monies, resources, and employees in the execution of the scheme that forms the basis of this lawsuit. Specifically, Plaintiff states that

KOT unwittingly paid for the magnetic boxes used to plant drugs on Plaintiff's vehicle, paid Defendant Russell Manual monies for his on the clock and off the clock activities related to the scheme, paid for his illicit monies for his role in the scheme, was a source of information (phone records) utilized by Heath Knight Billeaud in connection with the scheme, and even provided the “safe house” where defendants regularly met throughout the scheme....

         Plaintiff further contends that the Protective Order attached to KOT's motion is “onerous” in that it applies to “every single document requested” and requires that anyone presented with the protected documents (i.e. a witness) sign the Protective Order, making them subject to liability for any breach thereof. Plaintiff notes that any financial information of defendant, Mark Knight, would be accessible to Plaintiff as a shareholder outside of this litigation. He states that Mark Knight received a similar subpoena and has not filed a motion to quash. Thus, he asserts KOT has failed to show the need for such a Protective Order. In the alternative, KOT requests that the Court perform an in camera review of the requested documents to determine if any are “worthy of a protective order” and if so, determine whether or not the Protective Order is overly burdensome on the parties, jurors, witnesses and the Court.

         In its Reply, KOT reiterates the reasons for ruling provided in its motion. It specifically notes that Plaintiff has not opposed the request for all costs associated with the software licenses and computer work necessary in order to respond to the production requests by Plaintiff.

         2. Defendant Mark Knights Motion For Protective Order

         Defendant, Mark Knight, objects to the subpoenas issued to KOT and submits that any documents ultimately produced in response should be protected by a Protective Order. Specifically, Defendant moves the Court to quash the subpoenas as to “non-relevant, privileged, sensitive and confidential information and further, to restrict the overbroad scope of certain requests that may include requests for documents of potential relevance to viable claims of this litigation, but exceed the relevant time period and/or fail to describe what is sought with reasonable particularity, and therefore, include privilege and/or non-relevant items.” Defendant contends that any documents ultimately produced should be governed by a protective order, as proposed by KOT, prohibiting the disclosure or dissemination of the documents and information to anyone outside of this litigation.

         Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion arguing that it is “extremely untimely” as Plaintiff served the subject subpoenas on KOT April 16, 2019 and responses were due on April 29, 2019.

         3. Motion ...

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.