Covet & Mane, LLC v. Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC

Background

Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC applied for a protective order or asked the court to quash or modify subpoenas issued by Covet & Mane, LLC to third parties. The subpoenas sought documents and testimony, including from Kitsune Hair Co. LLC and two individuals identified in the application as the Turleys.

Invisible Bead Extensions argued that the subpoenas were overbroad, sought information unrelated to the claims in the case, ignored corporate distinctions between Invisible Bead Extensions and Kitsune, and imposed an undue burden. It also argued that Covet & Mane had not timely provided the witness fees required when a subpoena demands a person’s attendance. The application relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 45 and related local discovery procedures.

Ruling

The court denied the application without prejudice. It found that many of the subpoena requests appeared appropriately tailored to relevant subject matter, although some appeared overbroad. The court directed the parties to meet and confer live about the scope of the subpoena requests.

The court further ruled that, regardless of the corporate or business relationship between Kitsune and Invisible Bead Extensions, Kitsune was obligated to produce documents concerning Invisible Bead Extensions that were within Kitsune’s possession, custody, or control, so long as the documents were otherwise relevant, responsive, and not protected from disclosure.

Classification and effect

This was a discovery ruling rather than a decision on the underlying claims. The denial without prejudice left the application eligible for renewed consideration, although the opinion does not describe any later procedure or outcome.