United States District Court, C.D. California
Z Best Body and Paint Shops, Inc.
The Sherwin-Williams Company, et al.
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
(In Chambers) Order Granting Ex Parte Application to Quash
Subpeona [Dkt. 53]
August 24, 2017, Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company
(“Defendant”) filed an Ex Parte Application to
Quash Non-Party Subpoena (“Application”). ECF
Docket No. (“dkt.”) 53, Application. On August
25, 2017, Plaintiff Z Best Body and Paint Shops, Inc.
(“Plaintiff”) filed an Opposition to the
Application. Dkt. 54. After consideration of the papers in
support of and in opposition to the Application, the Court
GRANTS the Application.
JB COLLISION LITIGATION
August 20, 2013, Defendant sued non-party JB Collision
Services Inc. (“JB Collision”) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
for breach of a supply agreement (the “JB Collision
Litigation”). SDCA Case No. 3:13-cv-1946-LAB (WVG),
20, 2014, the court granted and issued the parties'
stipulated protective order in the JB Collision Litigation.
Id., Dkt. 35. The protective order provides
“no document . . . produced pursuant to FRCP 26, in
response to FRCP 33 Interrogatories, [or] FRCP Requests for
Production . . ., which is designated ‘Confidential,
' shall be disclosed in any way, direct or indirectly, in
any form, to anyone other than in connection with this
case.” Id. Plaintiff in the instant litigation
was not a party to the JB Collision Litigation protective
order. See id.
a four-day jury trial from November 17, 2015 through November
20, 2015, a number of documents that were protected under the
protective order were marked as trial exhibits in the JB
Collision Litigation. Declaration of Eddie Woodworth in
support of Application (“Woodworth Decl.”),
¶ 11. Following the trial, the court ordered return of
the exhibits and that the parties continue to comply with the
protective order. Id., ¶ 13, Ex. 4.
November 21, 2016, Plaintiff sued Defendant in the instant
action for breach of a supply agreement. Dkt. 1, Complaint.
On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
Dkt. 31. On June 7, 2017, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the FAC.
Dkt. 39. On June 28, 2017, Defendant filed an Answer to the
FAC, which it then amended on July 18, 2017. Dkts. 43, 46.
24, 2017, the Court held a scheduling conference and set
trial for December 5, 2017. Dkt. 48.
August 2, 2017, Plaintiff served a subpoena on counsel for JB
Collision seeking “any and all records and documents
produced by [Defendant] in related Case No. 13-CV-1946-LAB
(WVG) [the JB Collision Litigation] and received by Defendant
JB Collision Services, Inc. during discovery, including but
not limited to, all sets of [Defendant's] documents
produced” (the “Subpoena”). Woodworth
Decl., Ex. 1. A copy of the Subpoena was served on Defendant
on July 31, 2017, but Defendant did not receive the copy
until August 7, 2017. Id., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.
August 17, 2017, JB Collision filed a “Notice of
Federal Subpoena and Request for Instructions from
Court” (“Notice”). Dkt. 50. On August 21,
2017, Defendant filed a Response to JB Collision's
Notice. Dkt. 51. On August ...