Safelite and Safelite Solutions served a subpoena on the Independent Glass Association (IGA) requesting all documents relating to Public Act 13-67 (a Connecticut Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work), all documents relating to plaintiffs’ communications with policyholders and how they refer policyholders to automotive glass repair shops and all documents concerning any automotive glass claims administrator. The IGA responded by sending Safelite a letter objecting to the subpoena, writing “The IGA presently has no members in the State of Connecticut and has had none for the entire time period identified in the document demand accompanying the subpoena.”
Safelite had sued Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and State Insurance Commissioner Thomas Leonardi and asked for an injunction to halt enforcement of Public Act 13-67 (an Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work). After the District Court judge decided against an immediate injunction to halt enforcement, Safelite appealed this decision to the Appellate Court. A hearing was held at the Appellate level and a decision has not yet been handed down.
In its subpoena to the IGA, Safelite specifically requested:
—All documents concerning PA 13-67, the efforts to enact PA 13-67 and the expected or intended benefit of PA 13-67, including but not limited to (a) all of your internal communications and (b) all communications between or among you, the state and any third party.
—All documents concerning plaintiffs, including but not limited to plaintiffs’ communications with policyholders, the manner in which plaintiffs refer policyholders to automotive glass repair shops.
—All documents concerning any automotive glass claims administrator, including but not limited to the automotive glass claims administrator’s communications with policyholders and the manner in which it refers policyholders to automotive glass repair shops.
“The Independent Glass Association, through its attorneys, hereby objects to the subpoena served upon it on August 6, 2014, by plaintiffs Safelite Group and Safelite Solutions LLC,” IGA’s attorneys respond in a letter sent to Safelite.
“The subpoena requires production of documents at plaintiffs’ counsel’s office in New York City, a location greater than 100 miles from the IGA’s place of business in Arizona. As a result, the subpoena violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(a) (limiting the production of documents to a place within 100 miles of where the party subject to the subpoena or regularly transacts business) and 45(d)(1) (protecting a party subject to a subpoena from undue burden and expense).”
“The subpoena requires production of documents that the IGA does not have within its possession, custody or control,” IGA’s attorneys continue.
glassBYTEs.com™ editors obtained a copy of Safelite’s subpoena to the IGA and the association’s response.
To view a copy of Safelite’s subpoena, click here.
To view a copy of IGA’s response to the subpoena, click here.