Jackson Family Farms, LLC v. Moore

Background

The court was handling discovery matters in this case. Jackson Family Farms, LLC (JFF) noticed Jerry Moore’s deposition for September 16, 2025, in Napa, California. Moore stated that he lived in Dallas, Texas, and asked the court to “quash” the deposition notice. He argued that JFF had provided only 26 days’ notice, that Napa was an improper location under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), and that the deposition would be unduly burdensome and duplicative because he had already given a full-day deposition in a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding and had responded to extensive discovery.

JFF also served subpoenas for oral depositions and document production on nonparties Ian Donald and Tami Donald. Moore moved to quash those subpoenas, arguing that they violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45(a)(4) and 45(d)(1), the court’s discovery requirements, and limits on relevance, scope, and burden.

Deposition Notice for Moore

The court explained that Rule 45’s geographic limits apply to subpoenas, not to a party’s deposition taken by notice. It therefore treated Moore’s request as a request for a protective order under Rule 26(c) concerning the deposition’s timing and location rather than as a motion to quash.

The court concluded that Moore had not shown grounds to prevent the deposition entirely. His prior deposition in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding did not establish that the earlier deposition covered every issue in this case or that a deposition in this case would necessarily be duplicative or unduly burdensome. The court also noted that the two proceedings could involve different legal issues and available remedies, and that Moore was asserting counterclaims in this case.

The court nevertheless found that JFF had not reasonably complied with the usual rule that a party’s deposition should occur where that party resides or does business. It also found that the parties had not properly met and conferred about scheduling. The court therefore DENIED IN PART Moore’s motion as construed and MODIFIED the deposition notice to require the deposition to take place in Dallas, Texas. The parties were ordered to meet and confer promptly about a mutually agreeable date and time, file a joint status report by September 19, 2025, and, if they could not agree on a date, have their senior lead counsel meet in person in court on September 22, 2025.

Subpoenas to Ian Donald and Tami Donald

The court held that Moore, rather than the nonparties who received the subpoenas, was challenging the subpoenas. A party generally lacks standing—that is, the legal ability to bring the challenge—unless the party claims a personal right or privilege concerning the requested materials. Moore did not show that the subpoenas implicated attorney-client privilege or another privilege. His generalized concerns about personal, financial, or proprietary information were also insufficient.

The court noted that JFF had agreed not to object to confidential treatment of information Moore considered personal, financial, or proprietary. Until the parties entered their own stipulated protective order, the court ordered that documents, testimony, and information produced by Ian or Tami Donald be treated as confidential under the court’s model protective order. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about a stipulated protective order and file a proposed order by October 3, 2025.

Because Moore failed to establish standing and did not provide sufficient grounds for quashing the subpoenas, the court DENIED his motion to quash the subpoenas served on Ian Donald and Tami Donald. The order resolved Docket Nos. 82, 88, and 89.