Overbroad and overly general discovery requests are styled “fishing expeditions” by lawyers and judges, but in Capitol Places II Owner, LLC, Historic Preservation Fund 2014 LLC, A Partner Other Than the Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 16536-23, filed 5/2/25, Ch J-elect Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda quashes a subpoena that’s a trawling expedition.

Petitioners want all documents relating to 2022 purchase of property unrelated to the case at issue; (2) any and all appraisals thereof; (3) any and all documents reflecting the development and construction costs thereof prior to its sale; (4) financial statements and operating documents for the property before the sale; and (5) all correspondence, emails, memoranda, and communications relating to the negotiation and purchase of the property, determination of sale price, and communications with brokers or agents regarding the sale.

Except.

Petitioners served a subpoena for these goodies on a nonparty, in a case involving different property, different parties, in a transaction that took place ” nearly 8 years (and one worldwide pandemic with considerable knock-on economic effects) after Cap Places II’s easement donation.” Order, at p. 4.

So Ch J-elect Scholar Pat quashes the trawl.

“We see little relevant information to be derived from the documents relating to the 2022 purchase, including appraisals. As to historic documents regarding the development and the operations before [third party] purchased the property, we see no indication why these documents should be requested (if at all) from [third [party], which did not own or operate the property, rather than the seller, which did.” Order, at p. 4.

The JL Minerals order (nonprecedential, btw) involved how a highly-restricted industry with very few players valued mining sites, and was restricted to helping the Court understand the process. Developing student housing, the issue here, has many players, and whose methodology is no secret.

But third party doesn’t get legals, despite Rule 147(d) allowing same if subpoena is unduly burdensome.

“In determining whether the financial burden is unreasonable, we consider, inter alia, whether the expenses incurred in producing the records are reasonably incident to the party’s normal business, and ‘whether the subpoena is vague or overbroad or impossible to perform.’

“After considering the facts in this case, we will deny [third party]’s request for attorney’s fees. Although we will quash 2014 Fund’s subpoena, 2014 Fund’s actions to date were not unreasonable and the compliance costs to [third party] are not excessive given the nature of its business.” Order, at p. 5. (Citation omitted).