United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
LL'S MAGNETIC CLAY, INC. d/b/a Enviromedica, Petitioner/Plaintiff,
STAHLBERG TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Respondent.
JEREMIAH C. LYNCH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) motion to intervene as a
matter of right filed by Safer Medical of Montana, Inc.
(“Safer Medical”). For the reasons discussed, the
Court deems it appropriate to grant the motion.
Medical is a business based in Great Falls, Montana. It
asserts it owns and manufactures a brand of probiotic
supplements known as Prescript Assist which it has sold since
LL's Magnetic Clay, Inc., dba Enviromedica
(“Enviromedica”) served as a distributor for
Safer Medical's products from 2008 to 2017. In 2017,
Safer Medical believed Enviromedica had engaged in activities
detrimental to Safer Medical's business interests in both
its product and the market for the sales of its product.
Consequently, Safer Medical terminated its distributorship
relationship with Enviromedica.
result of the terminated relationship between Safer Medical
and Enviromedica, litigation between the two ensued.
Enviromedica commenced an action in United States District
Court in Texas against Safer Medical and its principal,
George Ackerson. (Doc. 2-2 (Third Amended Complaint in
LL's Magnetic Clay, Inc. d/b/a/ Enviromedica v. Safer
Medical of Montana, Inc., George S. Ackerson, and DOES
1-5, No. 1:17-cv-00649-SS, filed in United States District
Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division
(“Enviromedica I”)).) In general terms,
Enviromedica advances fraud-related claims in Enviromedica I
against Safer Medical and Ackerson based on various
representations they made to Enviromedica relative to the
Prescript Assist product and its ingredients, safety and
efficacy - representations on which Enviromedica relied to
invest in, and develop its distribution of the product, and
to build the market for the product. Enviromedica also
advances claims arising from Safer Medical and Ackerson's
other alleged acts of misconduct which damaged
Enviromedica's business interests. Safer Medical has pled
counterclaims against Enviromedica.
August 13, 2018, Enviromedica caused a subpoena for the
production of documents to be issued by the District Court in
Enviromedica I which was directed to Stahlberg
Taylor & Associates, PC (“Stahlberg”). (Doc.
2-3.) Stahlberg is Safer Montana and Ackerson's
accounting firm and bookkeeper. The subpoena directs
Stahlberg to produce documents in 24 identified categories
providing information on matters such as, inter alia, Safer
Medical and Ackerson's financial transactions, financial
records, communications, and business relationships. (Doc.
2-3 at 6 to 7 of 8.) The subpoena demands production of the
referenced documents relative to various business entities
associated or affiliated with Ackerson and Safer Medical
including: “George Ackerson, Safer Medical of Montana,
Inc., MT Organo Tech, LLC, Big Sky Laboratories, LLC, Flight
Crews, LLC, and any and all affiliates, including any
parents, subsidiaries, or predecessors-in-interest, and any
and all employees, agents, or anyone acting on their
behalf.” (Doc. 2-3 at 5 of 8.) Enviromedica asserts the
documents are relevant to its liability and damage claims
advanced in Enviromedica I.
response to the subpoena, Stahlberg communicated its
objections to the subpoena to Enviromedica. (Doc. 4-2 at
¶ 16.) Stahlberg has not produced documents in response
to the subpoena.
of Stahlberg's objections and its non-production of
documents, Enviromedica filed its motion to compel in this
action seeking to compel Stahlberg's compliance with the
subpoena. Stahlberg has not filed a response to the motion to
compel. Rather, it asserts it does not have the
“resources to hire counsel and formally
challenge” Enviromedica's motion. (Doc. 4-2 at
¶ 19.) Thus, in lieu of Stahlberg's active
opposition to the motion to compel, Safer Medical filed its
motion to intervene in an effort to protects its documents
Medical's motion to intervene is filed under authority of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) which provides, in part, as follows:
(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion,
the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(2) claims an interest relating to the
property or transaction that is the subject of the action,
and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a
practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to
protect its interest, unless ...