UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
April 8, 2010
ANGEL LEARNING, INC., PLAINTIFF,
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT PUBLISHING COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge
Litigation between these parties is pending in the Southern District of Indiana. Dkt. No 1-2, at 1.*fn1 In connection with that litigation Plaintiff ANGEL Learning, Inc., caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served upon Bank of America in Utica, New York. Dkt. No. 1-1, at 11-17. Defendant Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company moved in this Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and 45(c), for an order quashing the subpoena. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Dkt. No. 5.
The burden here is upon Defendant. 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2463.1 (3d ed. 2008). Bank of America apparently has asserted no objections to the subpoena. The Court will assume arguendo that Defendant has standing to make this motion.
Defendant argues that the documents Plaintiff seeks pursuant to the subpoena are irrelevant to any claim or defense pending in the Indiana litigation. However, Defendant acknowledges the "broad scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)". Dkt. No. 1-1, at 5. Given this broad scope, the Court would find the requested documents relevant even apart from Defendant's counterclaim for unjust enrichment. With respect to the counterclaim, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the requested documents are "directly relevant to [Defendant's] claim for unjust enrichment and [Plaintiff's] defense of unclean hands". Dkt. No. 5, at 6.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Defendant's motion to quash (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED.