Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shaposhnik v. HP Enterprise Services, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

April 24, 2018

YONA SHAPOSHNIK AND PRISTINE MACHINE, LLC., Plaintiffs,
v.
HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART AND HOLDING PART IN ABEYANCE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY [DOC. 57]

          VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Defendant, HP Enterprise Services, LLC (“HPES”), filed the above-entitled motion. It is fully briefed. The Court:

1. GRANTS IN PART HPES's request that Sofer, Weiss and Newman be compelled to produce documents responsive to subpoena requests, although they must submit for depositions;
2. GRANTS HPES's request that Plaintiffs' use of Mr. Shaposhnik's hard drive be limited to only those files Plaintiffs have identified as relevant;
3. DENIES HPES's request that Plaintiffs be compelled to respond to its discovery request; and
4. HOLDS IN ABEYANCE HPES's request that the Court extend fact discovery.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. HPES'S REQUEST THAT SOFER, WEISS AND NEWMAN BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO SUBPOENA REQUESTS

         HPES asks the Court for an order compelling Schlomo Weiss, Josef Sofer and Hallel Newman to respond to subpoena requests. HPES says that at all relevant times, Sofer was the Chief Operating Officer for Plaintiff Pristine; Weiss was its Senior Vice President in charge of Business Development; and, Newman was Pristine Machine's Executive Vice President for Operations and Communications. All three are third parties who live outside of Michigan. Plaintiffs deny they were officers of Pristine Machine.

         Plaintiffs and Weiss, Sofer and Newman make a number of procedural objections, invoking the requirements of Fed. R, Civ. P. 45 (a)(4), (b)(1), (c)(2)(a), (d) and (e). They say HPES failed to adhere to certain requirements, namely that: (1) notice needed to go to all parties; (2) HPES is prohibited from deposing persons at sites more than 100 miles from where they live; (3) HPES seeks compliance with the subpoenas in the wrong court; and (4) the subpoenas did not allow a reasonable time to reply.

         Plaintiffs waived these procedural objections by failing to timely respond to HPES's subpoenas. Olivia Marie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., No. 11-12394, 2011 WL 6739400, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2011) (“A nonparty's failure to timely object to the subpoena generally waives any objections.”). However, because the third parties did respond substantively, and their responses were less than three weeks late, the Court will allow their substantive objections to stand and be resolved on the merits.

         Substantively, Sofer, Weiss and Newman claim the requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome; are duplicative and seek irrelevant materials; and are not crafted to minimize the burden on them, in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(1)'s requirement to avoid imposing an undue burden on the person subject to the subpoena. Following are the five requests at issue (as amended), followed by the paraphrased responses set forth in the responses to the motion because HPES failed to isolate the formal responses in its motion:

         Request 1. All documents and communications which refer or relate to any agreements or contracts between Yona Shaposhnik and his employer, including Electronic Data Systems Corporation and HP Enterprise Services, LLC.

         RESPONSE: HPES's request is vague and ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome and duplicative of other requests to which Respondent produced documents. “His employer” is not defined and is otherwise vague as Mr. Shaposhnik's employer is not EDS or HPES and “his employer” is not relevant to any of the claims. It also begs the question as to why HPES would think Respondent has any documents related to this topic as they did not meet Mr. Shaposhnik until 2014 or later as he testified to at his depositions in New York.

         ORDER: Shaposhnik is required to produce employment related communications as requested, between him and any predecessor to HPES.

         Request 2. All documents and communications which refer or relate to any inventions by Yona Shaposhnik, including any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.