Holt et al v. Dunagan et al
| Ronald Holt and David Harpool |
| Emmanuel Dunagan, Jessica Muscari, Robert J. Infusino, Stephanie Porreca, Keishana Mahone and Lakesha Howard-Williams |
| 1:2024cv00293 |
| January 25, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Jeffrey I Cummings |
| Heather K McShain |
| Contract: Insurance |
| 02 U.S.C. § 431 Fed. Election Commission: Failure Enforce Compliance |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 18, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: The 3/18/24 tracking status hearing is stricken. Mailed notice (cc, ) |
Filing 19
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Heather K. McShain: Pending before the Court is a fully briefed motion to quash subpoenas filed by Ronald Holt and David Harpool. [1, 4, 5]. Holt and Harpool are attorneys who previously represented Dream Center Education Holdings (DCEH) and Dream Center Foundation (DCF), two entities that have been sued in a separate case, Dunagan v. Illinois Institute of Art-Schaumberg, LLC, Case No. 19 CV 809, that is pending in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in the Dunagan litigation are the respondents in this case, and they have served Holt and Harpool with subpoenas directing them to produce documents relating to their representation of DCEH, DCF, and other entities in connection with an academic-accreditation issue that is at the heart of the Dunagan lawsuit. Holt and Harpool raise multiple arguments in favor of quashing the subpoenas, including that the documents are subject to the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine and that the Dunagan plaintiffs can more readily obtain these documents through the discovery process in the Dunagan litigation from DCF. In their response to the motion, the Dunagan plaintiffs acknowledge that, after the motion to quash was filed, they served discovery requests on DCF that seek exactly the same documents that are at issue in the subpoenas to Holt and Harpool. #4 8 n.3. In a joint status report requested by the undersigned, the Dunagan plaintiffs further report that DCF has objected to these discovery requests (including on the ground that the documents are in the possession, custody, or control of third parties (i.e., Holt and Harpool's law firm)) and, in order to avoid duplicative motion practice, plaintiffs have elected not to pursue a motion to compel. #18 2-3. The joint status report further states that, despite Holt and Harwood having agreed to provide their complete file to DCF upon request, DCF has declined to request the file. [Id.] 3. In the exercise if its "extremely broad discretion in controlling discovery," Jones v. City of Elkhart, Ind., 737 F.3d 1107, 1115 (7th Cir. 2013), the Court grants the motion to quash #1 and will require that this privilege dispute be litigated, if at all, in the Dunagan case by the parties who are in the best position to address it: the Dunagan plaintiffs and DCF. First, "[a] non-party subpoena seeking information that is readily available from a party through discovery may be quashed as duplicative or cumulative." Rossman v. EN Eng'g, LLC, 467 F. Supp. 3d 586, 590 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Here, it is undisputed that the Dunagan plaintiffs did not seek the documents at issue from DCF before subpoenaing nonparties Holt and Harwood for the documents. Accordingly, plaintiffs must seek these documents directly from DCF before attempting to obtain them from Holt and Harwood, which plaintiffs have already begun to do. Second, DCF is in a far better position than Holt and Harwood to litigate the privilege dispute and to produce any documents that are determined to be non-privileged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (court must limit extent of discovery if it determines "the discovery sought... can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive"). Because Holt and Harwood are strangers to the Dunagan litigation, they are not as familiar with the relevant history of that litigation or how that litigation will proceed as DCF is. This is an important consideration, given (1) the earlier ruling in that case by District Judge Norgle that DCFH, which is DCF's subsidiary, has waived the attorney-client privilege over certain subject matter and (2) the intention of several defendants to raise an advice of counsel defense. As the holder of the attorney-client privilege being asserted over the documents, and as a party to the case in which the privilege has been challenged, DCF is in a superior position to litigate these issues, and the Court will not require two nonparties to wade into this privilege dispute and litigate it on their former client's behalf. See Rossman, 467 F. Supp. 3d at 590 ("the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs"). Finally, and for the reasons just given, the Court is not convinced that Holt and Harwood's physical possession of the client file means that the documents are as readily obtainable from them as they would be from DCF. This is especially so because DCF has an undisputed right to obtain the file upon request, and Holt and Harwood have represented that they are "ready, willing, and able to" produce the file "upon request from their former clients[.]" #1 5. For these reasons, the motion to quash #1 is granted. In resolving this motion, the Court has considered whether the motion to quash is a dispositive matter that must be addressed in a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge. But the Court has concluded that the motion is a nondispositive matter because, although the undersigned's ruling will effectively dispose of this case, the ruling in no way affects the substantive claims pending in the Dunagan litigation, and the discovery dispute addressed in this order can, if necessary, be litigated there. See Channelmark Corp. v. Destination Prods., Int'l, Inc., No. 99 C 214, 2000 WL 968818, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 7, 2000). Accordingly, the undersigned has authority to determine this issue without needing to prepare a Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Mailed notice. (pk, )
|
| Filing 18 STATUS Report Parties' Joint Status Report by Emmanuel Dunagan, Lakesha Howard-Williams, Robert J. Infusino, Keishana Mahone, Jessica Muscari, Stephanie Porreca Presented before Magistrate Judge (Miller, Cassandra) |
| Filing 17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondents Emmanuel Dunagan, Lakesha Howard-Williams, Robert J. Infusino, Keishana Mahone, Jessica Muscari, Stephanie Porreca by Cassandra P. Miller (Miller, Cassandra) |
| Filing 16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Heather K. McShain: The Court has reviewed the briefing on the motion to quash #1 . The Court observes that, after the motion was filed and in response to one of the arguments raised in favor of quashing the subpoenas, plaintiffs in the underlying Dunagan litigation served document requests on DCF "for the same categories of documents" in Holt and Harwood's files that are at issue in the subpoena. See #4 8; see also [6-3] 3-4 (plaintiffs' second set of requests for production of documents to DCF, dated 11/03/2023). The Court has reviewed the docket in the underlying Dunagan litigation, which does not disclose whether DCF has answered those document requests or whether a discovery dispute has arisen between plaintiffs and DCF as to those requests. Accordingly, by 03/04/2024, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report to update the Court on the status of plaintiffs' document requests to DCF (whether they have been answered, whether DCF has objected, etc.) and the extent to which, if at all, any production by DCF has mooted Holt and Harwood's motion to quash. Mailed notice. (pk, ) |
| Filing 15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Heather K. McShain: This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge McShain [ #13 , #14 ] for discovery supervision, including resolution of the pending motion to quash #1 . This motion to quash relates to subpoenas issued in Case No. 19-cv-809, Dunagan v. Illinois Institute of Art. The motion is fully briefed. [ #1 , #4 , #5 ] Once the Court has reviewed the briefs, it will decide whether it can rule on the papers or whether a motion hearing is required. Mailed notice. (pk, ) |
| Filing 14 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case referred to the Honorable Heather K. McShain pursuant to Local Rule 72.1. Signed by Executive Committee on 1/30/24. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Jeffrey I. Cummings. In light of the ongoing referral for discovery supervision to Magistrate Judge McShain in Case No. 19-cv-809, Dunagan v. Illinois Institute of Art, this case is referred to Magistrate Judge McShain for discovery supervision, including resolution of the motion to quash #1 . Status hearing set for 3/18/24 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice (cc, ) |
| Filing 12 Rule 83.15 Letter to all counsel of record. (aee, ) |
| Filing 11 RECEIVED from Kansas; Case Number 2:23-mc-00216 (aee). |
|
Filing 10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting #2 Motion to Transfer Case. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell on 12/8/23. (msb) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.]
|
| Case transferred to District of Northern District of Illinois.(msb) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Eric Rothschild for Emmanuel Dunagan, Lakesha Howard-Williams, Robert J. Infusino, Keishana Mahone, Jessica Muscari, Stephanie Porreca pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Signed by Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell on 11/29/2023. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ht) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.]
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for attorney Eric Rothschild to appear pro hac vice ( Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC-6214094.) by Respondents Emmanuel Dunagan, Lakesha Howard-Williams, Robert J. Infusino, Keishana Mahone, Jessica Muscari, Stephanie Porreca (referred to Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell) (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 ECF Registration Form)(Marcus, David) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
| Filing 7 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Respondents Emmanuel Dunagan, Lakesha Howard-Williams, Robert J. Infusino, Keishana Mahone, Jessica Muscari, Stephanie Porreca re: #2 Motion to Transfer Case, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF NON-PARTIES RONALD L. HOLT & DAVID HARPOOL'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Marcus, David) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE by Movants David Harpool, Ronald Holt re #2 Motion to Transfer Case, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit List, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D)(Witten, John) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
| Filing 5 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Movants David Harpool, Ronald Holt re: #1 Motion to Quash,,, Motion to Modify,,, Motion for Protective Order,,, Motion to Stay Deadlines,, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit List, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit)(Witten, John) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
| Filing 4 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION by Respondents Emmanuel Dunagan, Lakesha Howard-Williams, Robert J. Infusino, Keishana Mahone, Jessica Muscari, Stephanie Porreca re #1 MOTION to Quash MOTION to Modify the Subpoenas MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Stay Dates of Depositions (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G)(Marcus, David) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
| Set Deadlines as to #2 MOTION to Transfer Case MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF NON-PARTIES RONALD L. HOLT & DAVID HARPOOL'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT. Response deadline 11/22/2023; Reply deadline 11/27/2023.(msb) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
| NOTICE OF DOCKET TEXT MODIFICATION by Deputy Clerk: MOTION to Transfer Case MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF NON-PARTIES RONALD L. HOLT & DAVID HARPOOL'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT #2 will be decided by Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell (msb) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER EXPEDITING BRIEFING. Briefing related to #2 the Motion to Transfer the Motion to Quash Subpoenas is expedited as follows: Response brief due by November 22, 2023; Reply brief due by November 27, 2023. The court notes that, under the local rules, the response brief to #1 the Motion to Quash Subpoenas is due by November 15, with the reply brief due seven days thereafter. The parties should proceed to brief both motions unless and until the court grants the Motion to Transfer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell on 11/14/2023. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(ht) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.]
|
| MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: #2 MOTION to Transfer Case MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF NON-PARTIES RONALD L. HOLT & DAVID HARPOOL'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(ss) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Transfer Case MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF NON-PARTIES RONALD L. HOLT & DAVID HARPOOL'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by Respondents Emmanuel Dunagan, Lakesha Howard-Williams, Robert J. Infusino, Keishana Mahone, Jessica Muscari, Stephanie Porreca (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E)(Marcus, David) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
| NOTICE OF JUDGE ASSIGNMENT: Case assigned to District Judge Julie A. Robinson and Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell for all proceedings. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) NOTICE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AVAILABILITY: A United States magistrate judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action if all parties voluntarily consent. Information & consent forms are available at http://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/notice-consent-and-reference-civil-action-magistrate-judge (jk) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
| Filing 1 MOTION to Quash or in the alternative, Motion to Modify the Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order and Stay Dates of Depositions by Petitioners David Harpool, Ronald Holt (Attachments: #1 Exhibit List, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G)(Witten, John). Added MOTION to Modify the Subpoenas, MOTION for Protective Order, MOTION to Stay Dates of Depositions on 11/2/2023 (msb). Modified to only have motion to Quash per court request on 11/7/2023 (msb). [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
| MISCELLANEOUS CASE INITIATED by John W. Witten on behalf of David Harpool, Ronald Holt. See motion immediately following this entry for details. This is a text entry only. No document is attached. Filing fee $49, receipt number AKSDC-6192801., filed by on behalf of David Harpool, Ronald Holt.(Witten, John) [Transferred from Kansas on 1/25/2024.] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
