Maddenco Inc. v. James Reed, et al

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MADDENCO INC. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-1391-BAJ-SDJ

JAMES REED, ET AL

ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to E-Solution Professionals, LLC (R. Doc. 171), filed by Defendants HG Autotech, LLC, James Reed, and Dru Darby. In the Motion, Defendants seek an order compelling non-party E- Solution Professionals, LLC, to fully respond to a Subpoena Duces Tecum for records to discover information and documentation.1 Defendant initially filed its Motion to Compel on May 19, 2026.2 No response to this Motion has been filed, and the deadline for doing so has passed. See LR 7(f) (responses to motions are due within 21 days). As such, the Court considers Defendants’ Motion unopposed. I. Background Defendants HG AutoTech, LLC, James Reed, and Dru Darby issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum to ESP on February 16, 2026.3 Defendants issued a Subpoena for Production Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action to ESP through its registered agent, Incorp Services, Inc., located at 131 Continental Drive, Suite 301, Newark, DE 19713.4 On the same day, Defendants issued an Amended Subpoena for Production Documents,

1 R. Doc. 171 at 1. 2 R. Doc. 171. 3 R. Doc. 171 at 4. 4 R. Doc. 171-1. Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action to ESP through its registered agent, Incorp Services, Inc., located at 131 Continental Drive, Suite 301, Newark, DE 19713 to include one additional request for documents between ESP and Stan Gwin or Duff Capital Investors.5 On February 19, 2026, Defendants received a return of service, evidencing proof of service on ESP, specifically confirming service on Incorp Services, Inc., which is designated by

law to accept service of process on behalf of ESP.6 After receiving no responsive documents or response from ESP, Defendants sent a letter to ESP, via certified mail on April 8, 2026, which was received on April 13, 2026, at the same address, 131 Continental Drive, Suite 301, Newark, DE 19713. To date, Defendants have not received any responsive documents.7 II. Law and Analysis Discovery may be obtained from non-parties pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Louisiana Corral Mgmt., LLC v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 650 F.Supp.3d 491, 499 (E.D. La.2023). A non-party served with a subpoena duces tecum may object by sending written objections to the issuing party within 14 days of service or before the return date, whichever is

earlier. FRCP 45(d)(2)(B). If the non-party timely provides written objections, it has satisfied its obligations. The serving party may then file a Motion to Compel seeking compliance. FRCP 45(d)(2)(B)(i). A subpoena is a court order, and courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their orders through civil contempt. Pebblebrook Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Canopius US Ins., Inc., CV 23-1277, 2025 WL 2928960, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 15, 2025). If a party fails to respond fully to discovery requests in the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party seeking discovery may move to compel responses and for

5 R. Doc. 171-2. 6 R. Doc. 171-3. 7 R. Doc. 171-4. appropriate sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See, e.g., Lauter v. SZR Second Baton Rouge Assisted Living, LLC, No. 20-813, 2021 WL 2006297 (M.D. La. May 19, 2021). Here, ESP has not sent any objections to Defendants regarding the Subpoena. In fact, ESP has failed to respond in any manner to Defendants. Defendants made five requests for documents to ESP. Each request is limited in time and scope. Specifically, each request is limited from January

1, 2021, to the present. Defendants are seeking documents and communications between ESP and Plaintiff, other third parties, and internally regarding or relating to Defendants. Defendants seek ESP’s compliance with the subpoena. ESP’s responses were due on March 2, 2026. Defendants have previously offered, and still offer, to assist ESP in its response by providing a Sharefile or Dropbox link. Upon information and belief, ESP is aware of this lawsuit and has discussed such with Plaintiff. Further, upon information and belief, Matthew Walker, the CEO of ESP/Tireweb, has received the subpoena, leading to the assumption that he has willingly decided to not respond to the subpoena issued by this Court.

As ESP has made no objection to these requests and has not opposed Defendant’s Motion to Compel, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion and order E-Solution Professionals, LLC, to provide responses to these specific requests within 14 days of the date of this Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 171) filed by Defendants is GRANTED. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, E-Solution Professionals, LLC, is ordered to provide complete, detailed responses to Defendants’ Subpoena Duces Tecum. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 3, 2026. S