U.S. ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc.
U.S. ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc.
2022 WL 18932762 (N.D. Ala. 2022)
December 19, 2022
Burke, Liles C., United States District Judge
Summary
The Court denied Billy Joe Hunt's motion to quash a nonparty subpoena issued by Parsons Corporation and Cochise Consultancy, Inc. to the United States Government. The subpoena commanded production of three categories of evidence, including FBI Interview Report Forms, documents produced by Hunt, and images or copies of computer hard drives. The Court found that the requested material was relevant for discovery purposes and would not overly burden the Government or the parties.
UNITED STATES of America, EX REL. Billy Joe HUNT, Plaintiff,
v.
COCHISE CONSULTANCY, INC. and the Parsons Corp., Defendants
v.
COCHISE CONSULTANCY, INC. and the Parsons Corp., Defendants
Case No. 5:13-cv-2168-LCB
United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division
Signed December 19, 2022
Counsel
Gary V. Conchin, Kenneth Bridges Cole, Jr., Conchin Cole Jordan & Sherrod LLC, Huntsville, AL, Earl N. Mayfield, III, Pro Hac Vice, Juris Day, PLLC, Fairfax, VA, Jessica Machelle Haynes, Beasley Allen Law Firm, Mobile, AL, Larry A. Golston, Jr., Lauren Elizabeth Miles, Leon Hampton, Jr., Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.Duane A. Daiker, Robert Warchola, Shumaker Loop & Kendrick LLP, Tampa, FL, Robert B. Tuten, Tuten Law Offices, Huntsville, AL, for Defendant Cochise Consultancy, Inc.
Jackson R. Sharman, III, Jeffrey P. Doss, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Birmingham, AL, Jeffrey David Wexler, Pro Hac Vice, Kevin Reza Massoudi, Pro Hac Vice, Ronald L. Cheng, Pro Hac Vice, Aaron S. Dyer, Pro Hac Vice, James M. Carter, Pro Hac Vice, Michael R. Rizzo, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant The Parsons Corporation.
Burke, Liles C., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 This case arises under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Billy Joe Hunt claims that, between February 2006 and September 2006, Parsons Corporation and Cochise Consultancy, Inc. defrauded the United States Government on a military subcontract in violation of four distinct provisions of the False Claims Act. (Doc. 118 at 30). Hunt now moves to quash a nonparty subpoena issued by Parsons to the United States Government. (Doc. 184 at 1). For the reasons below, the Court denies the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
In August 2022, Parsons Corporation issued a subpoena to the United States Government, a nonparty. (Doc. 184-1 at 2). The subpoena commanded production of three categories of evidence:
a. Any and all Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Interview Report Forms (FD-302) documenting interviews of Billy Joe Hunt or Robert Riendeau dated between January 1, 2006 through November 30, 2013;
b. Any and all documents produced by Billy Joe Hunt to the United States Government between January 1, 2006 through November 30, 2013;
c. Any images or copies of computer hard drive(s) produced by Billy Joe Hunt to the United States Government between January 1, 2006 through November 30, 2013.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 establishes the general scope of discovery. Under that rule, a party may obtain discovery on “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant discovery includes “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).
During the course of discovery, a party may subpoena information from a nonparty. Jordan v. Comm'r, Miss. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2020). The issuing party, however, “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(1). A district court must quash or modify a subpoena that “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter,” or that “subjects a person to undue burden.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(3)(iii)–(iv). A court may also quash a subpoena that seeks material outside the scope of discovery. Jordan, 947 F.3d at 1329 & n.4 (collecting cases).
III. DISCUSSION
*2 The Court denies Hunt's motion to quash. As a threshold matter, the motion is moot as it pertains to the second and third categories of requested materials. At the motion hearing, the Government stated that it does not have any documents responsive to the second category of requested material—i.e., “[a]ny and all documents produced by Billy Joe Hunt to the United States Government between January 1, 2006 through November 30, 2013.” (Doc. 184-1 at 3). Counsel for Hunt stated that he no longer opposes the Government producing the third category of requested material—i.e., “[a]ny images or copies of computer hard drive(s) produced by Billy Joe Hunt to the United States Government between January 1, 2006 through November 30, 2013.” Id. Accordingly, Hunt's motion is moot as it pertains to the second and third categories of requested materials.
The first category of requested material—i.e., “[a]ny and all Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Interview Report Forms (FD-302) documenting interviews of Billy Joe Hunt or Robert Riendeau dated between January 1, 2006 through November 30, 2013”[2]—falls within the scope of discovery. The crux of Hunt's position—as articulated by his counsel during the motion hearing—is that production of these documents would lead to additional discovery. By Hunt's own admission, then, the requested material is relevant for discovery purposes. Additionally, the Government has, at most, five documents responsive to the first category of requested material. (Doc. 207 at 1). Production of these documents would not overly burden the Government or the parties. Thus, the first category of requested material falls within the scope of discovery.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Hunt's motion to quash (Doc. 184) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED December 19, 2022.