OPINION AND ORDER Respondent Evan Jowers is a defendant in a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned MWK Recruiting, Inc. v. Jowers, et al., No. 18 Civ. 444 (RP) (AWA) (W.D. Tex.) (the “Underlying Suit”). (See Dkt. #1). In the Underlying Suit, plaintiff MWK Recruiting, Inc. (“MWK”) alleges, inter alia, that Respondent misappropriated trade secrets and breached several contracts. See MWK Recruiting, Inc. v. Jowers, No. 18 Civ. 444 (RP) (AWA), 2019 WL 7761445, at *2 (W.D. Tex. July 29, 2019). As part of his defense, Respondent subpoenaed Petitioner Breaking Media, Inc. — publisher of the legal news website Above the Law (“ATL”) — seeking information, including documents and deposition testimony, primarily regarding four articles published by ATL. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s amended motion to quash the subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in responding to the subpoena. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion in full. BACKGROUND1 The Underlying Suit “is brought by MWK Recruiting, Inc., a legal recruiting firm, against Evan Jowers, a former employee of the firm, alleging that Jowers misappropriated trade secrets and breached the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions of his employment agreement.” MWK Recruiting, Inc. v. Jowers, No. 18 Civ. 444 (RP) (AWA), 2020 WL 1987921, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2020). The parties have been acrimoniously litigating the Underlying Suit for more than four years; the Court relates only such information about the suit that is pertinent to resolving the instant motion. As relevant here, ATL published two articles that reported on judicial decisions issued in the Underlying Suit. (See April 2020 Article; December 2020 Article). Respondent asserts that ATL was improperly critical of him and his counsel in these two articles, and alleges that this coverage was “orchestrated” by Robert E. Kinney, MWK’s principal, who “has been a sponsor of [ATL] for over a decade.” (Resp. Opp. 1, 4). Respondent alleges that, as a result of ATL’s coverage, his prior counsel, the law firm DLA Piper, withdrew from the case, and that since then he has been unable to find local counsel. (Id. at 3-5). Petitioner responds that several other media outlets reported on the same judicial decisions that the April 2020 Article and December 2020 Article covered, and that in any event, ATL’s coverage consisted primarily of quotes from the relevant judicial decisions. (Lerner Decl. 3; see also April 2020 Article; December 2020 Article). In addition to seeking information about the April 2020 Article and December 2020 Article, the Subpoena targets material related to two other ATL articles. First, it seeks information about the Barnes Article, a 2013 article discussing inappropriate remarks made by a legal recruiter. (Subpoena 8, 10). As far as the Court can discern, the Barnes Article — as well as the recruiter and subject matter discussed therein — has no connection or relevance to the Underlying Suit. (See Barnes Article; see generally Resp. Opp. (failing to mention or discuss the Barnes Article)). Second, the Subpoena seeks information regarding the Hong Kong Article, which was published in 2015 and is entitled “Kinney’s Evan Jowers Now Permanently Based In Hong Kong.” (Hong Kong Article; see also Subpoena 8, 10). Petitioner states that this article “was an ad placed, paid for[,] and written by Kinney Recruiting.” (Korzenik Decl. 18). The Subpoena is dated February 1, 2021, and required compliance — including the production of 20 categories of documents and a deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on 25 topics — on or before February 18, 2021. (See Subpoena 4, 9-10, 16-18; see also Lerner Decl. 2; Korzenik Decl. 2). Petitioner disputes that it was properly served with the subpoena and alleges that it did not have sufficient notice until February 17, 2021, the day before it was to comply. (See Lerner Decl.
11-12). However, Petitioner’s attorney states that he contacted Respondent’s attorney regarding the Subpoena as early as February 15, 2021 (Korzenik Decl. 5), and Petitioner’s chief executive officer concedes that he received email notice of the Subpoena on February 2, 2021, and that he emailed Respondent’s counsel regarding the Subpoena on February 12, 2021 (Lerner Decl. 6). Petitioner’s counsel states that he attempted to meet and confer with Respondent’s counsel regarding a stipulation to extend Petitioner’s time to respond to the Subpoena on February 15, 2021, but the following day Respondent’s counsel declined to consent to any extension. (Korzenik Decl.
