Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. v. DeBon
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05323
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Securitas v. DeBon: Judge McMahon partly upheld and partly reversed discovery-subpoena rulings, requiring JMC to produce specified nonprivileged documents.
Securitas must receive the specified documents, and Jeffrey Management Corporation must produce the required nonprivileged communications and documents within twenty business days. The ruling also limits Securitas’s broader subpoena requests.
What happened
In Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. v. DeBon, Securitas challenged a magistrate judge’s order that had quashed a subpoena directed to third-party witness Jeffrey Management Corporation, or JMC. The subpoena sought documents about communications involving Securitas’s former employee, Bruce DeBon.
The court affirmed five of the magistrate judge’s seven challenged rulings and reversed two. It required JMC to produce communications between DeBon and JMC during the relevant period, and nonprivileged documents referring to JMC’s doing business with Croker. It left in place the rulings rejecting broader requests, including requests for all emails referring to DeBon or Securitas’s documents and information.
Judge Colleen McMahon gave JMC twenty business days to produce the required documents. The order addressed discovery only and did not decide whether DeBon violated any legal duty to Securitas.
The detailed version
- Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. v. DeBon · No. 1:20-cv-05323
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 4, 2022
Background
Third-party witness Jeffrey Management Corporation (JMC) moved to quash, or invalidate, a discovery subpoena served by Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted JMC’s motion in all respects. Securitas and third-party defendant Felix Gonzalez filed seven timely objections to that ruling. The opinion states that JMC did not file a response to the objections.
Because an order quashing a third-party subpoena is a non-dispositive discovery order, the district court reviewed it under the deferential standard of whether it was “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” The court explained that this standard permits modification when the evidence leaves the court firmly convinced that a mistake was made or when the magistrate judge failed to apply or misapplied relevant law or procedural rules.
Rulings on the Objections
- Objection One: The court sustained Securitas’s objection and reversed the order quashing the request for copies of communications between DeBon and JMC from January 1, 2018, through the subpoena date. The court found those communications relevant and concluded that producing them would not impose an undue burden on JMC. - Objection Two: The court sustained the objection to the request for all emails during the same period that referred to DeBon, but affirmed the order quashing that request. The court found the request overbroad and potentially inclusive of privileged material. It stated that the narrower request for communications between DeBon and JMC should provide the relevant information. - Objection Three: The court issued the same ruling as to the request for JMC documents mentioning whether JMC would renew its contract with Securitas. The court affirmed the order quashing that request because the relevant issue was whether DeBon caused such conduct in violation of a legal duty, not whether JMC independently considered declining to renew. - Objection Four: The court overruled the objection and affirmed the order quashing the request for emails containing Securitas documents or information. It found that emails transmitting such material from DeBon to JMC would be produced under the request for communications between DeBon and JMC, making the separate request duplicative. - Objection Five: The court sustained the objection and reversed the order quashing the request for communications or documents referring to JMC’s entering into a contract or doing business with Croker. JMC was required to produce nonprivileged documents generated during the relevant period that specifically referred to doing business with Croker, because they could lead to relevant and admissible evidence. - Objection Six: The court overruled the objection and affirmed the order. It found irrelevant JMC’s views about the scope of any duty or agreement between Securitas and DeBon because JMC was not a party to that agreement and no claim was asserted against JMC based on it. - Objection Seven: The court overruled the objection and affirmed the order. It found that communications between DeBon and JMC about the app would be disclosed through the required production, while the rest of the request was overbroad.
Disposition
The court affirmed Judge Fox’s order as modified, reversing two of the seven challenged rulings and affirming the other five. It reinstated the subpoena to the extent described in the decision and gave JMC twenty business days from March 4, 2022, to provide the relevant documents to Securitas. The decision did not resolve whether DeBon actually violated a legal duty owed to Securitas.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.