Even companies that are not litigants sometimes find themselves faced with e-discovery obligations owing to receipt of third-party subpoenas issued under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In such circumstances, companies often assumed that courts would treat them favorably with respect to discharging their e-discovery obligations. A recent federal court decision should serve as a wake-up call to companies that find themselves on the receiving end of a subpoena, as courts may very well hold them to the same standard as parties and require prompt and complete compliance with such subpoenas.
‘St. Jude’
In St. Jude Medical S.C. v. Janssen-Counotte,1 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon was asked to rule on a motion to compel compliance with a third-party subpoena. In the principal case pending before another court,2 St. Jude, a medical technology company, sued Louise Marie Janssen-Counotte (Janssen), a former employee in its Belgium and Netherlands offices, for “theft and threatened misappropriation of trade secrets and other confidential information.”3
