United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Anthony California,
Inc.'s motion for issuance of a third-party subpoena to
Raymour & Flanigan Furniture, (Filing No. 39),
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply brief,
(Filing No. 49), and Defendant's objection to
that motion. (Filing No. 50). For the following
reasons, Plaintiff's motion for a third-party subpoena
will be granted in part, Plaintiff's motion for leave
will be denied, and Defendant's objection will be
Anthony California Inc., (“Anthony California”)
designs and sells lamps and accessories. (Filing No.
1). Anthony California operates its business by having
multiple Chinese companies (“foreign entities”)
manufacture its designs, with sales representatives selling
the manufactured lamps and accessories to retailers.
Defendant James Moran worked as a sales representative for
Anthony California, both individually and through the corporate
defendant M&M Sales, Inc., beginning over 20 years ago
until the year 2014. (Filing No. 1).
April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned action
against Defendants alleging breach of contract, tortious
interference with business expectations, misappropriation of
trade secrets, unjust enrichment, deceptive trade practices,
violations of the consumer protection act, and contributory
and vicarious copyright violations. (Filing No. 1).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants conspired with the
foreign entities to manufacture lamps, some of which were
Anthony California designs, and to sell them directly to
Plaintiff's customers. (Filing No. 40 at CM/ECF p.
4). None of the foreign entities are named as defendants
in the above captioned case. Instead, Plaintiff has filed a
separate lawsuit in the Central District of California
against some of the foreign entities (the “California
Litigation”). See No.
states that Raymour & Flanigan Furniture (“Raymour
& Flanigan”) was one of Plaintiff's largest
customers at the time that Defendant Moran left
Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff claims Defendants
learned of Raymour & Flanigan's information through
their use of Plaintiff's confidential customer
information. Thereafter, Defendants allegedly interfered with
Plaintiff's relationship with Raymour & Flanigan,
“even taking that relationship entirely[, ]”
(Filing No. 40 at CM/ECF p. 2), by convincing
Raymour & Flanigan to cancel purchase orders with
Plaintiff and becoming the the supplier on those orders.
proposed third-party subpoena seeks documents from Raymour
& Flanigan, relating to Defendants' and the foreign
entities' sales to Raymour & Flanigan. Defendants
generally object to the subpoena in its entirety but
specifically argue against the following topic inclusions:
6. Purchase orders and/or sales invoices (or similar
documents) that reflect the sale or purchase of, or offer to
sell or purchase, lamp or lighting products from any of the
Defendants since January 1, 2014.
7. Purchase orders and/or sales invoices (or similar
documents) that reflect the sale of or purchase of, or offer
to sell or purchase, lamp or lighting products from any
Foreign Entities since January 1, 2014.
11. Any contracts and agreements between [Raymour &
Flanigan] and any of the Defendants from January 1, 2014 to
12. Any contracts and agreements between [Raymour &
Flanigan] and any of the Foreign Entities from January 1,
2014 to the present.
(Filing No. 41-2 at CM/ECF pp. 12-13). Plaintiff
claims it needs the information requested in the contested
topics to calculate damages for its claims against Defendants
and to provide documentation and support for its claims.
9, 2018, the undersigned magistrate judge conducted an
informal hearing concerning the subpoena. During the hearing,
the undersigned limited the briefing on this issue, ordering
that a reply brief be filed only upon a showing of good
cause. Plaintiff has filed a motion arguing that there is
good cause for the filing of a reply brief, (Filing No.
49), and Defendant has objected to the motion.
(Filing No. 50). The court believes that information
found within the supporting and responsive briefs are
sufficient for the court to ...