Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Purewave Networks, Inc. v. Stutler Technologies Corp.

United States District Court, Tenth Circuit

November 25, 2013

PUREWAVE NETWORKS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
STUTLER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Kenneth G. Gale United States Magistrate Judge

Before the Court is the “Motion to Quash and for Protective Order” filed by Defendant Stutler Technologies Corporation (Doc. 16), seeking an Order prohibiting Plaintiff from taking numerous depositions. The Court held a telephonic hearing on this motion on November 12, 2013. Plaintiff appeared by its attorneys Brenard Rhodes and Susanne Geraghty. Defendant appeared by its attorney Wesley Smith. Having heard arguments and reviewed the submissions and exhibits presented by the parties, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s motion for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the present action seeking payment of $445, 975.50 for goods delivered to Defendant but for which Plaintiff alleges not to have been paid. (Doc. 1, at 6.) Plaintiff also seeks interest as well as costs, attorneys fees, and punitive damages. (Id.) Defendant has made an offer to Plaintiff which would allow Plaintiff to “take a judgment for the entirety of the amount prayed for in the Complaint . . . plus interest, ” but with no attorneys fees or allowance for punitive damages. (Doc. 17, at 2.) Plaintiff counter-offered with a demand for the full judgment of $445, 975.50 in addition to a cash payment of $40, 000. (Id., at 3.) Defendant, which states it is insolvent, contends it is unable to make this payment. (Id.) Defendant followed these settlement discussions with a formal Offer of Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 68 in the amount of $445, 975.50. (Doc. 17-1, at 4.)

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) governs protective orders and provides, in relevant part:

A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending. . . . The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: * * *
(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;
(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure or discovery;
* * *
(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters; . . . .

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). Also instructive is Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 1 which states that the rules “should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

The party seeking to quash a subpoena must show “good cause” for the request. Id.; Sloan v. Overton, No. 08-2571-JAR-DJW, 2010 WL 3724873 (D.Kan. Sept. 17, 2010). To establish “good cause” within the meaning of Rule 26(c), the party must ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.