Heidelberg Americas v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, 01-2463.

Decision Date20 June 2003
Docket NumberNo. 01-2463.,01-2463.
Citation333 F.3d 38
PartiesHEIDELBERG AMERICAS, INC., Heidelberg Web Systems, Inc., Petitioners, Appellees, v. TOKYO KIKAI SEISAKUSHO, LTD. and TKS (USA), Inc., Respondents, Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Barry J. Reingold, with whom Perkins Coie, LLP, James P. Bassett, Marty Van Oot, and Orr & Reno, were on brief, for appellants.

Mark C. Rouvalis, with whom Sarah B. Knowlton, McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, P.A., and Hugh T. Lee, were on brief, for appellees.

Before TORRUELLA, LYNCH and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

HOWARD, Circuit Judge.

In July 2001, Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho and TKS (USA), Inc. (collectively, "TKS"), served a subpoena duces tecum on Heidelberg Americas, Inc., and Heidelberg Web Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Heidelberg"). The subpoena sought information purportedly relevant to a lawsuit in which TKS is a party but Heidelberg is not. Heidelberg, which was served at its offices in New Hampshire, successfully moved to quash the subpoena in the resident United States District Court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3). TKS appeals, asserting abuse of discretion. We affirm.

I. Background

TKS is a defendant in a civil action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. The plaintiff in that action, Goss Graphic Systems, Inc., alleges that TKS and seven other defendants (collectively "Iowa defendants") violated the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72 (2003)1 ("the Anti-Dumping Act"), by selling newspaper printing presses at prices substantially below their market values. The Iowa lawsuit itself derives from an earlier trade dispute that culminated in a 1996 Department of Commerce ("DOC") determination that the Iowa defendants had engaged in illegal dumping and a 1996 International Trade Commission ("ITC") determination that further imports by the Iowa defendants posed a risk of economic harm to Goss.

After the 1996 determinations, Goss' financial condition precipitously declined. In 1999, Goss filed a petition to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Following its emergence from bankruptcy in early 2000, Goss brought the Iowa lawsuit, which attributes Goss' late-1990s financial woes to the anti-competitive practices of the Iowa defendants. The complaint in the Iowa action alleges, for example, that the Iowa defendants violated the Anti-Dumping Act by continuing to unlawfully dump even after the DOC and ITC rulings, causing Goss to lose crucial sales and contracts.

Heidelberg, a manufacturer of newspaper printing presses, is not a party in the Iowa action. Nor was it a party to the DOC or ITC investigations. Heidelberg became involved in this matter as a result of acquisition talks it had with Goss. In July 2002, Goss and Heidelberg entered into an agreement in which the parties promised not to disclose for two years any confidential information obtained during the negotiations between them. As part of ongoing discussions, Heidelberg allegedly evaluated Goss' value as a going concern.

A year after the confidentiality agreement was entered into, TKS subpoenaed Heidelberg in New Hampshire, requesting the production of "[a]ll documents received, reviewed or generated by Heidelberg since 1991 relating to the possible acquisition of (a) an ownership interest in Goss, or (b) any other type of business affiliation with Goss." Heidelberg responded by objecting to the subpoena on the grounds that it was "unduly broad, overly burdensome, [and] seeks trade secrets and other confidential research development or commercial information." Heidelberg also cited a then-recent report of the World Trade Organization that concluded that the Anti-Dumping Act violated two treaties to which the United States was a signatory.2 Subsequently, Heidelberg filed its motion to quash.

On August 6, 2001, the New Hampshire district court granted the motion to quash in a margin order. Two days later, the Iowa district court stayed the underlying proceedings based on proposed legislation in Congress to repeal the Anti-Dumping Act. TKS soon thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration in the New Hampshire district court. This was denied "on the grounds that the subpoena was unduly burdensome, overly broad, and sought documents that contained trade secrets and confidential information." The court further found that "the relevanc[e] of the requested documents was not sufficiently justified." Even if there were adequate grounds for the subpoena, the court added, the dubious legal status of the Anti-Dumping Act militated against its execution.

TKS appealed,3 but we stayed the appeal for the duration of the stay of the Iowa litigation. Congress subsequently failed to pass legislation repealing the Anti-Dumping Act. Accordingly, in August 2002, the Iowa district court lifted its stay and directed the parties to complete discovery. We then lifted our stay as well.

II. Analysis

TKS challenges the ruling below on three overlapping bases. First, TKS contends that it did indeed establish the relevance of the documents sought. Second, it says the subpoena was narrowly tailored to solicit information related to the Iowa litigation, and thus was neither overly broad nor unduly burdensome. Finally, TKS contests the district court's determination that the information sought constituted protected trade secrets or confidential commercial information. To a degree, all these arguments address one question central to the appeal: whether TKS' need for the information overcomes Heidelberg's rationale for resisting disclosure. We therefore fix our attention on TKS' second argument.

District courts exercise broad discretion to manage discovery matters. In turn, we review discovery orders for an abuse of that discretion, "recognizing that an appeals court simply cannot manage the intricate process of discovery from a distance." Brandt v. Wand Partners, 242 F.3d 6, 18 (1st Cir.2001). Put another way, we will disturb a discovery order only "upon a clear showing of manifest injustice, that is, where the lower court's discovery order was plainly wrong and resulted in substantial prejudice to the aggrieved party." Mack v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 186 (1st Cir.1989).

While district courts are to interpret liberally the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to encourage the free flow of information among litigants, limits do exist. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) advisory committee notes (1983). For example, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) provides that, upon a showing of good cause, the presiding court "may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense." Even more pertinently, Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv) commands...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Arrillaga-Torrens
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 26 Agosto 2016
    ...the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "to encourage the free flow of information among litigants," Heidelberg Americas, Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd , 333 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir. 2003), and that rather than encourage such a flow, Arrillaga's interpretation would hinder it (Docket No. 38......
  • Foley v. Town of Marlborough
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 29 Agosto 2022
    ... ... v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas , 262 F.R.D. 293, 299 ... (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ... Heidelberg Ams., Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, ... ...
  • Cabral v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 12 Noviembre 2009
    ...omitted). We review the district court's pretrial discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. Heidelberg Americas, Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., 333 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir.2003). This court will only intervene in discovery "upon a clear showing of manifest injustice, that is, where the......
  • United States v. Vázquez-Rosario
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 17 Agosto 2022
    ...a subpoena, for abuse of discretion. Cabral v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 587 F.3d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 2009) ; Heidelberg Ams., Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., 333 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir. 2003). Therefore, we will reverse the district court's order on appeal "only ‘upon a clear showing of manife......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Nonparty discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2021 Contents
    • 31 Julio 2021
    ...expert in order to establish expert’s dishonesty quashed as unduly burdensome); Heidelberg Ams., Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. , 333 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2003) (subpoena which sought materials generated over ten years, related to nonparty’s attempt to acquire company involved in action,......
  • Nonparty discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Handling Federal Discovery
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...expert in order to establish expert’s dishonesty quashed as unduly burdensome); Heidelberg Ams., Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. , 333 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2003) (subpoena which sought materials generated over ten years, related to nonparty’s attempt to acquire company involved in action,......
  • Nonparty discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2018 Contents
    • 8 Agosto 2018
    ...expert in order to establish expert’s dishonesty quashed as unduly burdensome); Heidelberg Ams., Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. , 333 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2003) (subpoena which sought materials generated over ten years, related to nonparty’s attempt to acquire company involved in action,......
  • Nonparty discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2019 Contents
    • 8 Agosto 2019
    ...expert in order to establish expert’s dishonesty quashed as unduly burdensome); Heidelberg Ams., Inc. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. , 333 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2003) (subpoena which sought materials generated over ten years, related to nonparty’s attempt to acquire company involved in action,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT