SMITH TANK & STEEL, INC., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. FRIO WATER HOLDINGS, LTD. and FRIO WATER HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants / Counter-Plaintiffs. FRIO WATER HOLDINGS, LTD., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MENDFORD TRUCKING, LLC, Third-Party Defendant No. 5:18-CV-202-H United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Lubbock Division Filed January 07, 2020 Counsel Courtney Elizabeth Ervin, Anna Elizabeth Larson, Hicks Thomas LLP, Houston, TX, Paul L. Mitchell, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant. Chad L. Farrar, Flannery Hoard Nardone, Katherine Phillips Harrison, Mullin Hoard & Brown LLP, Dallas, TX, Ken Edward Kendrick, Kelly Sutter & Kendrick, Houston, TX, Michael D. Hicks, Mullin Hoard & Brown LLP, Lubbock, TX, Robert R. Bell, Bailey & Glasser LLP, Hewitt, TX, for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff Frio Water Holdings LTD. Chad L. Farrar, Katherine Phillips Harrison, Mullin Hoard & Brown LLP, Dallas, TX, Ken Edward Kendrick, Kelly Sutter & Kendrick, Houston, TX, Michael D. Hicks, Mullin Hoard & Brown LLP, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Frio Water Holdings LLC. Hendrix, James Wesley, United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING FRIO'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND GRANTING IN PART SMITH TANK'S MOTION TO COMPEL *1 Before the Court are the parties' numerous and extensive discovery motions. Because the Court finds that the subpoena propounded to Ms. Patty Bracey in her personal capacity imposes an undue burden on Bracey within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iv), the Court grants Frio's motion to quash the subpoena. Dkt. No. 98. However, the Court also finds that Frio has withheld relevant, non-privileged documents that are within its control from Smith Tank in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Thus, Frio is ordered to search its records and provide the documents that are described in the subpoena that Smith Tank served on Bracey as soon as practicable and no later than January 28, 2020. Frio must obtain native data from the phones of Bracey, Greg Curlee, and Scott Bryant, and produce such data. To the extent that the subpoena overlaps with Smith Tank's motion to compel, Dkt. No. 57, that motion is granted in part. 1. Frio's Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena is granted. In support of its Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena, Frio argues that compliance with the subpoena would impose substantial burdens on Ms. Bracey. See Dkt. No. 99 at 8. The Court agrees, and it further agrees with Frio that “the documents that Smith Tank seeks via its subpoena duces tecum to Ms. Bracey are Frio documents.” Id. at 7. It is therefore ordered that the subpoena duces tecum is quashed. 2. Frio's objections to specific document requests in the subpoena are overruled, and Smith Tank's Motion to Compel is granted in part. The Court finds that Frio's objections to specific document requests in the subpoena are without merit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and the Court overrules the objections. Frio's formulaic objections to document requests seeking the production of documents created between 2017 and 2018 are not sufficient to demonstrate a lack of proportionality to the needs of the case. See id. at 10–16. Accordingly, Frio is ordered to produce all documents requested in the subpoena duces tecum that Smith Tank served on Bracey as soon as practicable and no later than January 28, 2020. Responsive, non-privileged communications that are obtained as native data from the phones of Bracey, Greg Curlee, and Scott Bryant must be produced. The Court understands from Frio's brief that Frio no longer persists in its objections to producing such native data. See Dkt. No. 99 at 5. To the extent that Frio persists in arguing that it may not be compelled to gather and produce business communications that it directed employees to conduct on the employees' personal phones from those phones, that objection is overruled. See In re Pradaxa Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 312MD02385DRHSCW, 2013 WL 6486921, at *17 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2013), order rescinded on other grounds, 745 F.3d 216 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding that “business related text messages on certain employees' phones” were subject to discovery); H.J. Heinz Co. v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 2:15-CV-00631-AJS, 2015 WL 12791338, at *4 (W.D. Pa. July 28, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:15-CV-00631-AJS, 2015 WL 12792025 (W.D. Pa. July 31, 2015) (same). Frio's Motion to Compel, Dkt. No. 57, is granted as to the portions of that motion that overlap with the subpoena that was served on Bracey. *2 Insofar as Frio has specific, meritorious objections to producing any document on the basis of privilege, see Dkt. No. 99 at 9–10, it is ordered to serve and file a privilege log on Smith Tank immediately after Frio discovers any material it considers to be privileged and to make such objections known at the January 13, 2020 hearing if Frio becomes aware of such allegedly privileged material prior to the hearing. 3. Conclusion The Court quashes the subpoena duces tecum propounded to Patty Bracey in her personal capacity but orders Frio to obtain and produce all documents referenced in the subpoena as soon as practicable and no later than January 28, 2020. So ordered on January 7, 2020.