Opinion
20-cv-03131-JSC
05-11-2022
PACIFIC WINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. VITOL INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: VITOL MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA
Re: Dkt. No. 389
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Defendant Vitol's motion to compel Chevron to comply with Request No. 2 of Vitol's Rule 45 subpoena. (Dkt. No. 389.) In particular, Vitol seeks to require non-party Chevron to produce its entire discovery production, including unredacted expert reports and deposition transcripts, made in Persian Gulf Inc. v. BP W. Coast Prod. LLC, No. 3:15-CV-01749-L-BGS (S.D. Cal.). After carefully considering the parties' written submissions, and having the benefit of oral argument on May 11, 2022, the Court DENIES Vitol's motion as it has not shown that all of Chevron's production in Persian Gulf is relevant to a claim or defense in this case. The Court nonetheless orders Chevron to produce what it offered in January 2022.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs discovery of nonparties by subpoena. “The scope of the discovery that can be requested through a subpoena under Rule 45 is the same as the scope under Rule 26(b).” Maplebear Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 21-MC-80007-SK, 2021 WL 1845535, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2021). Under Rule 26(b), a party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make ... more or less probable ... [a] fact [that] is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. Vitol, the party that issued the subpoena, bears the burden of demonstrating relevancy. Pers. Audio LLC v. Togi Ent., Inc., No. 14-MC-80025 RS (NC), 2014 WL 1318921, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014). Further, Rule 45 provides that the Court shall quash or modify a subpoena that imposes an undue burden. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv).
DISCUSSION
Vitol has not met its burden of showing that every single document, expert report, and deposition transcript (from January 2013 to the present) produced by Chevron in Persian Gulf is relevant to this litigation. While some of the discovery is likely relevant to claims and defenses in this action, Vitol does not even attempt to show how all of it is. This omission is especially glaring given that Vitol has the benefit of the production to the California Attorney General's Office and the summary judgment briefing in the Persian Gulf litigation. In light of those productions, Vitol should be able to make targeted requests that fill the gaps as opposed to seeking a blanket order directing production of everything produced in Persian Gulf.
The cases upon which Vitol relies in is motion are very different from the issue here: each involved clone discovery of litigation involving the same defendant and the same factual allegations. In Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2017 WL 1101799 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017), for example, the “clone discovery” involved false advertising claims against the same defendant and based on the same representations. Id. at *2-3; see also Costa v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 2019 WL 108884, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 4, 2019) (ordering clone discovery in product liability action from a product liability lawsuit involving same defendant and product; denying such discovery for lawsuits involving same defendant but different product or defect); Whitman v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 2020 WL 5526684 *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 15, 2020) (ordering clone discovery from case “the same defendant, the same policy form, the same claims, and the same alleged wrongful conduct alleged in the instant action”). Here, in contrast, the Persian Gulf litigation does not involve any of the same parties and it alleges a different conspiracy.
In its reply memorandum, Vitol cites two cases involving discovery from non-parties. Neither is persuasive. In In re McKesson Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price Litigation, 264 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Cal. 2009), a lawsuit pending in Massachusetts alleged that McKesson and First Databank entered into a scheme to artificially increase the published average wholesale price for prescription drugs. Id. at 597. McKesson served a subpoena for documents produced in another case which challenged the exact same scheme. Id. The producing party did not dispute the relevance of the documents sought; instead, it argued only that the deliberative process privilege applied to many of the documents and it would be an undue burden for the party to have to engage in that privilege review. Id. at 599 (the producing party “does not argue with Defendant's assertion of relevance or dispute its need for the documents”). Not so here. And, here, unlike McKesson, the allegedly fraudulent scheme in the subpoenaed litigation involves different players, different time periods, and different methods, although it allegedly resulted in a similar result: higher gasoline prices for some of the same time period.
In Tessera, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., 2006 WL 733498 (N.D. Cal. March 22, 2006), the non-party objected to production of the requested litigation documents on the grounds that none were relevant. The court rejected that argument. There was no argument, or discussion, as to whether some, but not all, documents were relevant; instead, the non-party made an all or nothing argument. Id. at *3-4. Here, in contrast, Chevron argues that Vitol has not shown that all of the documents Chevron produced in litigation involving a different alleged conspiracy are relevant and that instead Vitol must seek more targeted discovery. The Court agrees.
Vitol's emphasis on the lack of burden to Chevron misses the point. First, before the Court addresses burden, the subpoenaing party must demonstrate relevance. Second, it ignores the burden of producing confidential business information. Every time a business is required to permit its confidential information to be shared there is a risk, and thus a burden, that it will not be maintained as confidential notwithstanding protective orders. Sometimes the need for the information outweighs that burden, but Vitol does not even address that burden, let alone establish its need for all of the information.
Accordingly, Vitol's motion to compel is DENIED. As Chevron no doubt possesses some relevant information, the parties shall meet and confer in person or by video regarding Chevron's production of documents as offered in its January 31, 2022 correspondence. (Dkt. No. 412-1 at ¶ 8.) Further, to the extent not encompassed by its January 31, 2022 proposal, Chevron must abide by its oral argument offer to consider Vitol's requests that are tethered to gaps left by the summary judgment record, the California Attorney General's production, and the productions of the other non-parties.
This Order disposes of Docket No. 389.
IT IS SO ORDERED.