From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Performance Pulsation Control, Inc. v. Sigma Drilling Techs., LLC

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Sep 6, 2018
Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00450 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 6, 2018)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00450

09-06-2018

PERFORMANCE PULSATION CONTROL, INC. v. SIGMA DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, INTREPID CONSULTING, LLC, JUSTIN MANLEY, ALLISON MANLEY, WILLIAM GARFIELD, PAMELA GOEHRING-GARFIELD, and ADVANCED RUPTURE DISK TECHNOLOGY, INC.


Judge Mazzant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Performance Pulsation Control, Inc.'s ("PPC") Emergency Motion to Quash and Emergency Motion for Protection from Defendants' Subpoena to Non-Party HRS Fastener, Inc. ("Fastener") (Dkt. #187). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.

On August 22, 2018, Defendant Sigma Drilling Technologies, LLC ("Sigma"), served PPC with a notice of intent to serve a subpoena on Fastener (Dkt. #187-1). The subpoena requires Fastener to produce documents and electronically stored information related to eight categories by September 6, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. (Dkt. #187-1 at p. 6). On September 5, 2018, PPC filed the motion at issue. PPC moves the Court to quash the subpoena and enter a protective order arguing the subpoena is unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and the information sought can be obtained from more convenient sources. Fastener has not objected to the subpoena or joined PPC's motion.

"A party does not have standing to quash a subpoena served on a third party unless the party seeks to quash based on a 'personal right or privilege with respect to the materials subpoenaed.'" Diamond Consortium Inc. v. Manookian, 4:17-MC-00002, 2017 WL 699052, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2017) (quoting Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979)); see also Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Sys. Corp., 4:07-CV-109, 2008 WL 2509367, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 23, 2008). PPC does not allege a personal right or privilege with respect to the materials subpoenaed. Accordingly, PPC does not have standing to quash the subpoena. Therefore, the Court DENIES PPC's Emergency Motion to Quash and Emergency Motion for Protection from Defendants' Subpoena to Fastener (Dkt. #187).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 6th day of September, 2018.

/s/_________

AMOS L. MAZZANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Performance Pulsation Control, Inc. v. Sigma Drilling Techs., LLC

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Sep 6, 2018
Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00450 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 6, 2018)
Case details for

Performance Pulsation Control, Inc. v. Sigma Drilling Techs., LLC

Case Details

Full title:PERFORMANCE PULSATION CONTROL, INC. v. SIGMA DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC…

Court:United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 6, 2018

Citations

Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00450 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 6, 2018)