Free Order on Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

{ i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
BILTMORE ASSOCIATES, as Trustee )
for the Visitalk Creditors Trust, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
PETER THIMMESCH, et al., )
) No. CIV O2-2405 PHX (HRH)
Defendants. )

O R D E R
Motion for Protective Order and
to Compel Production of Documents
Plaintiff moves to compel the production of documents in
response to a subpoena issued by it to non-party Ernst & Young, LLP;
and, in connection therewith, proposes the entry of a protective
order for the benefit of Ernst & Young.* The motion is opposed.
Oral argument has not been requested and is not deemed necessary.
Ernst & Young was previously a party to this case but was
dismissed by stipulation of the parties and an order of the c0urt.2
1 Clerk's Docket No. 243.
2 Clerk's Docket No. 203.
- 1 -
Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Document 251 Filed O8/O2/2005 Page:1 0f3

.5 $ 1 l
The court understands that there are or will be arbitration proceed-
ings between plaintiff and Ernst & Young as regards the latter pro-
viding consulting services to plaintiff’s predecessor in interest.
The instant discovery dispute is tangentially related to the non-
court proceedings, for, in addition to providing consulting services
to plaintiff's predecessor, Ernst & Young also performed auditing
and accounting services for plaintiff's predecessor. It was appar- _
ently intended that those services be the subject of an engagement
agreement; but the court has been provided with no signed copy of
any such agreement. In the absence of an engagement letter signed
by p1aintiff's predecessor, information exchange restrictions that
might have been a part of an auditing and accounting services agree-
ment are not enforceable against plaintiff.
In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel
production of documents having to do with the providing of auditing
and accounting services only is granted, and, concurrent herewith,
the court has executed and will be cause to be entered the protec—`
tive order proposed by plaintiff for Ernst & Young’s benefit with,
however, a nmdification. Plaintiff's proposed protective order
would seem to permit the use of materials gathered pursuant to
plaintiff's subpoena in. both "the above-captioned. matter [and_
another] dispute between Plaintiff and Ernst & Young regarding ser-
vices rendered by Ernst & Young to [plaintiff's predecessor]."
Whether or not materials gathered by plaintiff for purposes of this
litigation may be used in connection with other proceedings shall
be a matter entrusted to the decision—making of such other judicial
- 2 -
Case 2:O2—cv-O2405—HRH Document 251 Filed O8/O2/2005 Page 2 of 3

' ‘ · ai? .
officer or arbitrators as may be involved in those other proceed-
ings. - ‘
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this day of J ,
2005.
H. Russel Hollan
United States District Ju ge
- 3 -
Case2:O2—cv-O2405—HRH D0cument251 Filed O8/O2/2005 Page30f3

Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH

Document 251

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH

Document 251

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH

Document 251

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 3 of 3