In Hoover v. Florida Hydro, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87839 (E.D. Louis. Oct. 1, 2008), the court denied plaintiff's motion to quash defendant's third party subpoenas.  Instead, the court ordered the parties to enter into a discovery protocol outlining the search methodology relating to the third party storage media.  The court also ordered reimbursement of one of the third party witnesses to cover costs incurred with compliance.

The case arose from a contract dispute between the parties regarding an oral agreement whereby defendant promised plaintiff fifty percent stock ownership in exchange for plaintiff's promise to secure commercial funding for the company.  Defendant issues a subpoena duces tecum for the deposition of plaintiff's friend and former roommate and demanded the production of certain documents, his laptop, computer, flash drive, hard drive, PC and other electronic data responsive to the subpoena.  In addition, defendant issued a subpoena to plaintiff's mother asking for the same type of electronic information.  Defendant's competitor currently employs plaintiff's mom.

Plaintiff, on behalf of the subpoenaed third parties, argued that the subpoena was duplicative of an earlier request for paper documents and was unduly burdensome. The court held that the information was not duplicative or unduly burdensome, but ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding a search protocol to protect the privacy and privilege interests of the non-parties.  The court furthered ordered the defendant to reimburse plaintiff's mom's expenses related to compliance with the subpoena.