United States District Court, D. Idaho
NELSON-RICKS CHEESE COMPANY, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff,
LAKEVIEW CHEESE COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant Lakeview Cheese Company
LLC's (Lakeview) Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas and
to Issue Protective Order. Dkt. 47. Plaintiff Nelson Ricks
Cheese Company, Inc. (NRCC), filed a response to the above
Motion and simultaneously filed a Motion to Seal Document.
Dkt. 50. Lakeview, in conjunction with its Reply to the
above, also filed two Motions: a Motion to Extend Deadlines
(Dkt. 54); and a Motion to Supplement Protective Order (Dkt.
the three motions filed with the various briefs are in their
infancy, because these matters are time sensitive, the Court
will address all motions as they are all part and parcel to
the overall discovery controversy. These last two motions in
particular place the Court in a bind because the Court must
address them immediately, but in doing so, NRCC will not have
a chance to respond. Having reviewed the record and briefs,
the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are
adequately presented. Accordingly, in the interest of
avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the
decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral
argument, the Court will decide the motions without oral
argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS
lawsuit arises out of claims brought by NRCC that Lakeview
infringed upon NRCC's registered “Nelson Ricks
Creamery Company” trademark on their website. Plaintiff
asserts various claims for relief, including trademark
infringement. NRCC's requested relief is primarily
current motions revolve around 15 subpoenas that NRCC served
on non-parties. On September 29, 2017, NRCC served Lakeview
with notice that it had served subpoenas on 15 Lakeview
customers seeking financial information related to
Lakeview's sales to them over a five-year period.
Lakeview contends that these subpoenas are duplicative of
information NRCC has already requested from them and serve no
legitimate purpose but to harass Lakeview and its customers.
NRCC does not dispute that the information sought is
duplicative, but contends the subpoenas are necessary as
Lakeview has not adequately responded to NRCC's requests.
in the briefing is certain information that reflects informal
communications between the parties and the Court. While the
general substance of those communications is irrelevant here,
it is worth noting in particular one issue-at least for
context-as it plays a large role in this decision.
the layers are pealed back on the motions currently pending,
Lakeview's root concern is that Mike Greenberg,
NRCC's CEO, may see this financial information and that
as a competitor this would be improper. Further background
reveals that NRCC has listed Mike Greenberg as a damages
expert. Lakeview contends this is precisely why it did not
want to turn over these financial documents in response to
NRCC's Fifth Set of Document Requests, and why it now
objects to customers complying with the subpoenas.
light of the lack of production, NRCC served the
aforementioned subpoenas on Lakeview's customers. The
customers must comply with the subpoenas by October 30, 2017.
Lakeview filed the instant motion seeking to quash the
subpoenas. Subsequent motions followed which deal with
interrelated issues. The Court will address each in turn.
Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3) provides that a Court
must quash or modify a subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical
limits specified in Rule 45(c);
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected
matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
the Court may quash or modify a subpoena if ...