Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. v. DeBon
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05323
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Securitas Electronic Security v. DeBon, Judge Fox granted Croker’s motion to quash Securitas’s subpoena because its requests were irrelevant and overly broad.
Croker’s subpoena obligations were ended because the court quashed Securitas’s subpoena. The ruling addressed discovery in Securitas’s claims against Bruce DeBon but did not decide those claims.
What happened
Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. sued its former employee Bruce DeBon, alleging that he misused its confidential information to help Croker Fire Drill Corporation compete for Securitas’s customers and business opportunities. DeBon also brought claims involving Felix Gonzalez.
Croker, which was not a party to the case, asked the court to cancel Securitas’s subpoena. Croker argued that the subpoena sought irrelevant and excessive information, potentially including protected attorney-client communications, and did not allow enough time to respond. Securitas argued that the documents could show DeBon’s alleged misuse of its information and interference with its customer relationships.
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ruled that the subpoena did not seek attorney-client privileged material and that Croker had not shown that 14 days was an unreasonable response period. But Judge Fox found that Securitas had not explained how each request related to its claims and that the requests for “all” documents, communications, and materials were not narrowly tailored. The court granted Croker’s motion to quash the subpoena.
The detailed version
- Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. v. DeBon · No. 1:20-cv-05323
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 18, 2021
Background
Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. sued its former employee Bruce DeBon for damages based on alleged breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, interference with existing and prospective business relationships, usurpation of corporate opportunities, and unjust enrichment. Securitas alleged that DeBon used its confidential and proprietary information during and after his employment to help form a competing venture and to assist Croker Fire Drill Corporation in obtaining business from ATCO Management Services, LLC, Jeffrey Management Corp., and Vornado. DeBon asserted counterclaims and third-party claims against Felix Gonzalez.
The dispute addressed here concerned a subpoena served by Securitas on non-party Croker. Croker moved to quash the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3), which requires or permits a court to cancel or modify a subpoena in specified circumstances. Croker argued that Securitas’s allegations did not provide a proper basis for the subpoena, that the requests sought irrelevant and disproportionate information, that some requests could encompass attorney-client communications, and that the subpoena did not allow a reasonable time for compliance.
Parties’ Positions
Croker challenged 13 requests seeking broad categories of communications, documents, and materials concerning DeBon, Securitas, DeBon’s compensation and employment at Croker, DeBon’s obligations to Securitas, and Croker’s business relationships with ATCO, Jeffrey Management, and Vornado. Croker emphasized that several requests covered periods before DeBon worked for Securitas or Croker and that some requests had no time limit.
Securitas argued that the subpoena was directed at evidence of DeBon’s alleged misuse of Securitas’s confidential information and his alleged interference with Securitas’s customer contracts and business opportunities. Securitas also maintained that the information could be located through database searches or limited email review, that privileged material was excluded by the subpoena’s instructions, and that confidential information could be protected under the stipulated confidentiality order.
Legal Standard
Under Rule 26(b)(1), discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Rule 45(d)(3) requires or permits a court to quash or modify a subpoena that, among other things, seeks privileged material, does not allow a reasonable time to comply, or creates an undue burden. The party seeking to quash a non-party subpoena bears the burden of persuasion.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected Croker’s argument that Securitas’s allegations were legally insufficient to support the subpoena. Croker had offered no legal authority or other support showing that the allegations could not support the requests.
The court also rejected Croker’s privilege argument. Securitas represented that it did not seek or expect production of privileged material, and the court found that the subpoena did not seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
The court further rejected Croker’s objection to the 14-day response period. Although Croker had requested an additional 30 days, it did not provide specific facts showing that the 14-day period was unreasonable or explaining the nature and extent of the burden.
The court sustained Croker’s objections based on relevance and scope. Securitas had not explained how each request related to a particular element of its claims for interference with existing contracts or prospective business relations. The court also found that Securitas did not address the requests’ broad time periods, including periods beginning before DeBon worked for Securitas and Croker, or the requests with unlimited time periods. Requests for “all” documents, communications, and materials did not identify the particular confidential or proprietary information that Securitas claimed DeBon had misused.
Disposition
The court granted Croker’s motion to quash Securitas’s subpoena. The opinion does not decide the merits of Securitas’s underlying claims against DeBon.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.