Cindy Tyree v. Kirk A. Melton, Randslaw, PLLC, J. Justin May, and Johnson May, PLLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho considered the Family Businesses’ motion to quash amended non-party subpoenas issued by Cindy Tyree in her professional negligence action against her former attorneys. The court held that the subpoenas were relevant but overly broad and unduly burdensome as written, and permitted Tyree to amend them subject to limitations concerning relevance, duplication, alternative sources, particularity, and a January 1, 2018 cutoff date. The motion to quash was granted in part and denied in part, and the request for attorneys’ fees and costs was denied.

Holdings

1. The subpoenas, as written, imposed an undue burden and had to be quashed in part, but the motion to quash was denied as to requests that complied with the limitations stated in the decision.
2. The records identified by Tyree's experts as necessary to evaluate the former attorneys' professional performance and potential damages were relevant to the action, but documents not identified by those experts were not shown to be relevant on the record presented.
3. Tyree could not use the subpoenas to obtain documents that could be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source, or documents she already possessed or could access.
4. The subpoenas had to be limited to clearly identified documents and, generally, documents created on or after January 1, 2018, with an exception for the businesses' organizing documents.
5. The family businesses were not entitled at that time to attorney fees and costs incurred in seeking to quash the subpoenas.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended non-party subpoenas imposed an undue burden under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 45.
2. Whether the subpoenaed documents were relevant and proportional to Tyree's professional-negligence and damages claims.
3. What limitations on the subpoenas were necessary concerning alternative sources, documents already accessible to Tyree, particularity, and time period.
4. Whether the non-party businesses were entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred in seeking to quash the subpoenas.

Disposition

other