United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
B. SMITH United States Magistrate Judge
case comes before the Court without oral argument on Blitz
Telecom Consulting, LLC's Unopposed Motion to Intervene
for the Limited Purpose of Moving to Quash Subpoena (Doc.
Local Access, LLC's complaint alleges that it entered
into a contract with Defendant Peerless Network, Inc., and
that Peerless subsequently breached the contract (Doc. 1).
Local Access also alleges that Peerless was unjustly enriched
to the extent that Local Access provided a benefit to
Peerless (Id.). Peerless has motioned the Court to
dismiss the complaint or in the alternative, for a more
definite statement (Doc. 14).
5, 2017, Peerless served a subpoena for the production of
documents on non-party Inteliquent, Inc. (Doc. 36-2). Among
other things, the subpoena asks for 21 categories of
documents relating to Inteliquent's business dealings
with non-party Blitz (Id.). Inteliquent has objected
to the subpoena and Local Access has moved for a protective
order (Doc. 35; Doc. 36, ¶ 8). Now, Blitz seeks leave of
Court to intervene for the sole purpose of objecting to the
subpoena (Doc. 36). Blitz argues that intervention is
appropriate because some of the documents Peerless has
subpoenaed are “highly confidential trade secrets and
proprietary commercial information which would be harmful to
Blitz' interests if disclosed.” (Id.,
¶ 6). Peerless does not oppose the motion to intervene
(Id., at 4). Although Blitz has not stated Local
Access' position on the motion, it seems unlikely that
Local Access opposes intervention since the same lawyer
represents it and Blitz.
party seeking to intervene by right who lacks an
unconditional right to intervene via a federal statute must
establish that: (1) his application to intervene is timely;
(2) he has an interest relating to the property or
transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) he is so
situated that disposition of the action, as a practical
matter, may impede or impair his ability to protect that
interest; and (4) his interest is represented inadequately by
the existing parties to the suit.” Winemiller ex
rel. T.W. v. Judd, 8:13-cv-2995-T-17EAJ, 2015 WL
3901623, at *4 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2015) (citing Chiles
v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989)).
consider four factors in determining the timeless of a motion
(1) the length of time during which the would-be intervenor
knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the
case before he petitioned for leave to intervene; (2) the
extent of prejudice to the existing parties as a result of
the would-be intervenor's failure to apply as soon as he
knew or reasonably should have known of his interest; (3) the
extent of prejudice to the would-be intervenor if his
petition is denied; and (4) the existence of unusual
circumstances militating either for or against a
determination that the application is timely.
United States v. Jefferson Cnty., 720 F.2d 1511,
1516 (11th Cir. 1983). See also Angel Flight of
Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight America, Inc., 272 F.App'x
817, 819 (11th Cir. 2009). “ʻ[T]imeliness is not a
word of exactitude or of precisely measurable dimensions. The
requirement of timeliness must have accommodating flexibility
toward both the court and the litigants if it is to be
successfully employed to regulate intervention in the
interest of justice.'” Chiles v.
Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989)
(quoting McDonald v. E.J. Lavino Co., 430 F.2d 1065,
1074 (5th Cir. 1970)). Blitz makes its motion within the time
frame for moving to quash the subpoena pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(2)(B), and there is no objection to
intervention. On this record, the Court finds that the motion
seeks to intervene to protect what it claims are its trade
secrets and proprietary commercial information. This is
sufficient to make a finding that Blitz has a direct,
substantial, protectable interest in the subpoena directed to
Inteliquent. Medi-Weightloss Franchising USA, LLC v.
Medi-Weightloss Clinic of Boca Raton, LLC,
8:11-cv-2437-T-30MAP, 2012 WL 12904394, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May
10, 2012) (Allowing intervention to protect pricing, cost
data, profits, sales statements, board meeting minutes,
intranet orders, manufacturer invoices and purchase orders.);
Winemiller, 2015 WL 3901623, at *5
(“Furthermore, as Proposed Intervenors seek to
intervene only for the limited purposes of protecting the
disclosure of their full names and their right to counsel at
depositions, their interests are related to the
action.”) (citing Dow Jones & Co. v. U.S.
Dep't of Justice, 161 F.R.D. 247, 253 (S.D.N.Y.1995)
(finding that widow of individual who committed suicide had
an interest in an action where she moved to intervene to
appeal court order enjoining Department of Justice from
withholding copies of her husband's suicide note)).
Court's rulings on the objections to the subpoena will
concern much of the information Blitz claims is confidential
and proprietary. Consequently, the effect of the Court's
rulings and Blitz' claimed interest in certain of the
information that has been subpoenaed are closely related
issues. Should the Court overrule the objections to the
subpoena, then Blitz' ability to protect its interest in
the information could be compromised or worse. This is
sufficient to satisfy the third requirement for intervention.
Eleventh Circuit has held that the inadequate representation
requirement “is satisfied if the [proposed intervenor]
shows that representation of his interest ‘may be'
inadequate” and that “the burden of making that
showing should be treated as minimal.” Chiles,
865 F.2d at 1214 (quoting Trbovich v. United Mine Workers
of America, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n. 10, 92 S.Ct. 630, 30
L.Ed.2d 686 (1972)). Blitz argues that intervention is
necessary because Inteliquent and Local Access may not have
the ability to protect Blitz' interest in the information
it deems confidential and proprietary (Doc. 36, ¶ 8).
Blitz has not articulated facts to support its conclusory
argument. But, the test is not a stringent one and no party
objects to intervention. Accordingly, the Court will err on
the side of Blitz and permit intervention.
the motion to intervene is GRANTED. Blitz may intervene in
this case for the sole limited purpose of objecting to the
subpoena Peerless has served on Inteliquent. Blitz shall have
seven days from the date of this Order in which ...