The Hunte Corporation v. Jodell Martinelli

Eighth Circuit

The Hunte Corporation v. Jodell Martinelli

446 F. App'x 818

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 29, 2011

Docket11-1290

StatusUnpublished

This text of 446 F. App'x 818 (The Hunte Corporation v. Jodell Martinelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Hunte Corporation v. Jodell Martinelli, 446 F. App'x 818 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Elliot Moskow and Karen Galatis (collectively, “appellants”) served a subpoena on The Hunte Corporation (“Hunte”) to obtain discovery to aid them in certain litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Hunte, as a non-party to the litigation in Arizona, sought a protective order, and the district court 1 found “it appropriate to shift all reasonable and necessary costs Hunte incurs in complying with the subpoena” to appellants. Appellants filed a motion for partial reconsideration and suggested three factors for the district court to consider in determining whether appellants should bear the costs of discovery. The district court analyzed the issue using the three factors appellants suggested, but maintained its initial position that appellants must bear the costs of discovery. Appellants now appeal.

We review discovery rulings for “gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness.” Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 477 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc., 352 F.3d 358, 360 (8th Cir.2003)). Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, we find no abuse of discretion. Therefore, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and deny Hunte’s motions to take judicial notice and enlarge the record on appeal.

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Elliot Moskow and Karen Galatis (collectively, “appellants”) served a subpoena on The Hunte Corporation (“Hunte”) to obtain discovery to aid them in certain litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Hunte, as a non-party to the litigation in Arizona, sought a protective order, and the district court 1 found “it appropriate to shift all reasonable and necessary costs Hunte incurs in complying with the subpoena” to appellants. Appellants filed a motion for partial reconsideration and suggested three factors for the district court to consider in determining whether appellants should bear the costs of discovery. The district court analyzed the issue using the three factors appellants suggested, but maintained its initial position that appellants must bear the costs of discovery. Appellants now appeal.

We review discovery rulings for “gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness.” Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 477 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc., 352 F.3d 358, 360 (8th Cir.2003)). Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, we find no abuse of discretion. Therefore, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and deny Hunte’s motions to take judicial notice and enlarge the record on appeal.

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 F. App'x 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-hunte-corporation-v-jodell-martinelli-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack