In re The Subpoenas Issued to Dethmers Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 February 2023
• Docket Number: 21-1652
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED TO DETHMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, DETHMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED TO DETHMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, DETHMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 21-1652

Supreme Court of Iowa

February 10, 2023

Submitted December 14, 2022

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County, Nancy L Whittenburg, Judge.

An Iowa manufacturing company appeals the district court's refusal to quash subpoenas that require production of documents and testimony for use in a Louisiana products-liability case. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Daniel E. DeKoter (argued) of DeKoter, Thole, Dawson, Rockman &Krikke, P.L.C., Sibley, for appellant.

Frederick W. James (argued) of The James Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, and Nicholas A. Blanda of Anderson, Dozier, Blanda &Saltzman, Lafayette, Louisiana, for appellee Tharun Mittapalli.

MAY Justice.

Subpoenas are powerful tools. By serving subpoenas, private parties and their attorneys can compel free citizens to appear at specified places, give sworn testimony, produce documents and more. But with this power comes responsibility. See, e.g., 9A Charles Alan Wright &Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2453, at 396 (3d ed. 2008) ("[T]he lawyer's . . . power to issue subpoenas is accompanied by . . . professional responsibility with regard to using it appropriately ...."). An attorney or party who serves a subpoena "must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena." Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1701(4)(a). "The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees, on a party or attorney who fails to comply." Id. And "[o]n timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . [s]ubjects a person to undue burden." Id. r. 1.1701(4)(d)(1)(4).

In this case, a plaintiff in a Louisiana products-liability suit used Iowa's interstate discovery procedures to serve subpoenas on Dethmers Manufacturing Company, an Iowa firm. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1702 (permitting parties to foreign proceedings to issue subpoenas in Iowa). Dethmers was not (and is not) a party in the Louisiana suit. And Dethmers has no direct interest in the suit. Even so, the subpoenas commanded Dethmers to provide twenty-two categories of documents and testimony. Many of those categories are extraordinarily broad. Fairly read, the subpoenas required Dethmers to produce every document that has anything to do with its trailer-coupling business-and then to also provide sworn testimony about every facet of that business. Dethmers moved to quash the subpoenas. The district court declined. Dethmers appeals.

We conclude that these subpoenas imposed undue burdens on Dethmers. Dethmers's motion to quash the subpoenas should have been granted. We reverse and remand with instructions.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On November 22, 2016, Tanika Adams was driving an SUV in Louisiana. Adams was pulling a U-Haul trailer. Adams's SUV was equipped with a hitch ball, and the trailer was equipped with a coupler. The coupler attached the trailer to the SUV's hitch ball.

While Adams was traveling west on Interstate 10, the coupler became detached from the hitch ball. So Adams pulled the SUV to the right shoulder. But part of the trailer remained in the travel lane.

Tharun Mittapalli and two friends were also driving west on Interstate 10. They pulled over and tried to help Adams.

Meanwhile, a tractor trailer was also headed west on Interstate 10. It struck the U-Haul trailer, the SUV, and the people. Mittapalli was seriously injured. His accrued medical expenses exceed $1.2 million. Adams was also seriously injured. One of Mittapalli's friends was killed.

Mittapalli sued U-Haul and others in Louisiana state court. Mittapalli claims that a defect in the coupler caused the detachment. More specifically, Mittapalli claims that the coupler was unreasonably dangerous because of a design defect.^[1]

Under Louisiana law, Mittapalli's unreasonably-dangerous-design claim requires proof that "at the time the product left its manufacturer's control[,] . . . [t]here existed an alternative design for the product that was capable of preventing the claimant's damage." La. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.56(1) (2017). It also requires proof that "at the time the product left its manufacturer's control[,] . . . [t]he likelihood that the product's design would cause the claimant's damage and the gravity of that damage outweighed the burden on the manufacturer of adopting such alternative design and the adverse effect, if any, of such alternative design on the utility of the product." Id. § 9:2800.56(2).

Mittapalli believes that Dethmers has information that could help him meet these requirements. Dethmers designs, manufactures, and sells couplers. And although Dethmers did not manufacture the coupler involved in the collision,^[2] Dethmers has sold couplers to U-Haul. Specifically, Mittapalli claims that "after the catastrophic incident, U-Haul began to implement the Dethmers EZ Latch Coupler (which U-Haul deems the 'Drop &Tow Automatic Coupler') into their fleet of tow trailers." And Mittapalli believes that there are important differences between (1) the coupler that was involved in the accident and (2) the Dethmers-designed EZ Latch Coupler. Specifically, Mittapalli believes that Dethmers's design was (to paraphrase the Louisiana statute) a feasible alternative design that probably would have prevented the detachment and subsequent injuries.

So Mittapalli filed a "Motion for Issuance of a Foreign Subpoena Duces Tecum" and a "Motion for Issuance of a Subpoena for Deposition" in Iowa district court. The court opened a separate file for each. Mittapalli then served two subpoenas on Dethmers: one for documents and one for deposition testimony. The document subpoena required Dethmers to produce twenty-two categories of "documents"-a term that, according to the subpoena, includes "writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records, computer generated or stored data, electronically stored information, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by [Dethmers] through detection devices into reasonably usable form." The deposition subpoena required Dethmers to produce a "duly authorized corporate representative" who "must have sufficient knowledge and qualifications to testify regarding" the same twenty-two categories. Here are the twenty-two categories, verbatim:

1. The general scope of Dethmer/Demco's business as it relates to the design, development, and manufacturing of trailer coupling devices.

2. Dethmer/Demco's history of designing, manufacturing and/or selling hand wheel couplers and/or lever latch couplers.

3. Facts and circumstances surrounding the design, development, and manufacturing of the Demco EZ Latch coupler.

4. The utility, function, benefits and/or purpose of the Demco EZ Latch coupler.

5. All patent applications and/or awards regarding the Demco EZ Latch coupler.

6. All engineering drawings, testing reports, schematics, diagrams, plans, blueprints, electronically stored information, video, or other documents or tangible items that depict, describe, discuss, refer to, or relate to the design, assembly, testing and/or construction of the Demco EZ Latch coupler.

7. All safety and/or instructions manuals, documents, warnings and/or electronic communication (i.e. computer or video links) regarding the Demco EZ Latch coupler including, but not limited to engineering drawings, testing reports, schematics, diagrams, plans, warnings, instructions, blueprints, electronically stored information, video, correspondence, electronic communication, etc.

8. All communications, marketing and/or negotiations with U-Haul International, Inc. (hereinafter "U-Haul") and/or other customers regarding the utility, function, benefits, safety, and/or purpose of the Demco EZ latch coupler.

9. The approximate date and/or time frame that Dethmer/Demco introduced the Demco EZ Latch coupler for sale to the public, including, but not limited to customers such as U-Haul.

10. All communications, marketing and/or negotiations with U-Haul and/or other customers regarding the purchase, sale, use, and/or implementation Demco EZ Latch couplers.

11. All communications, promotions, and/or marketing with U-Haul and/or any other customers regarding whether the Demco EZ Latch couplers could potentially improve safety and/or reduce liabilities.

12. The approximate date and/or time frame that Dethmers/Demco first began communications, marketing and/or negotiations with U-Haul regarding the potential purchase, sale, use, and/or implementation of Demco EZ Latch couplers.

13. All documents and electronic communication between Dethmers/Demco and U-Haul regarding the utility, function, benefits, safety, and/or purpose of the Demco EZ Latch coupler.

14. Facts and circumstances surrounding U-Haul's purchase, use, and/or implementation of Demco EZ Latch couplers in their fleet of towing equipment.

15. All documents, contracts, agreements, and/or electronic communication between Dethmers/Demco and U-Haul regarding U-Haul's purchase, use and/or implementation of Demco EZ Latch couplers in their fleet of towing equipment.

16. Communications, marketing and/or negotiations with U-Haul and/or other customers regarding the replacement and/or retrofitting of hand wheel and/or lever latch couplers with Demco EZ Latch couplers.

17. All documents, contracts, communications and/or agreements regarding the price and/or cost paid by U-Haul for Demco EZ couplers (purchase, retrofit, etc.).

18. All studies, testing, analysis, investigation and/or statistical data with respect to decoupling and/or detachment incidents involving the

...