United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
PVMI INTERNATIONAL, INC., assignee of MEDBOX INCORPORATED, Plaintiff,
DARRYL B. KAPLAN et al., Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs,
MEDBOX INCORPORATED, Counter-Defendant MEDVEND HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff,
MEDBOX INCORPORATED, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS-COUNTER PLAINTIFFS’ AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH PORTIONS OF SUBPOENA TO ENVY TECH FUND I, LLC AND ENVY-MEDVEND LOAN FUND, LLC (ECF #47)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 19, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the motion by Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs Darryl B. Kaplan, Claudio Tartaglia, and Eric Kovan, and Third-Party Plaintiff Medvend Holdings, LLC, to quash portions of the subpoenas to Envy Tech Fund I, LLC (ECF #48-4) and Envy-Medvend Loan Fund, LLC (ECF #48-3, collectively “the Supoenas”). (See the “Motion to Quash, ” ECF #47.) For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Quash is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows.
The Motion to Quash is GRANTED to the extent that the Subpoenas seek documents (1) “exchanged … during settlement negotiations” and (2) “authored or created for the purpose of settlement negotiations.” Graff v. Haverhill North Coke Co., No. 09-670, 2012 WL 5495514, at *32 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2012) (interpreting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003)). These documents are protected by the privilege for communications made in furtherance of settlement recognized in Goodyear, supra. Counsel for Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs and Third-Party Plaintiff shall serve upon the opposing parties a privilege log containing a brief description of all responsive documents that are withheld pursuant to the Goodyear privilege (or any claimed privilege).
The Motion to Quash is DENIED to the extent that the Subpoenas seek any final, executed settlement agreement and attachments or exhibits thereto. Counsel for Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs and Third-Party Plaintiff shall produce these documents to the Court for the Court’s in camera review by no later than July 13, 2015. Documents produced to the Court shall be Bates stamped or otherwise numbered. The Court will review all documents produced by Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs and Third-Party Plaintiff to determine their relevance to this action. Counsel for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant may submit a supplemental notice describing its theories of the possible relevance of the requested materials by no later than July 3, 2015. Counsel for Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs and Third Party Plaintiff may respond by no later than July 10, 2015.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the fact discovery cut-off date shall be ...