Mlazgar and HLI Subpoena Dispute Transferred to South Carolina Court

The legal battle between R.L. Mlazgar Associates and HLI Solutions, a subsidiary of Hubbell Lighting, continues to intensify as a Georgia federal court transfers a key subpoena dispute to South Carolina, where the main breach-of-contract case is underway.

On 5 August, U.S. Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in favor of HLI Solutions, granting its motion to transfer a contested subpoena directed at Cooper Lighting.  The decision sends the matter back to the U.S. District Court in South Carolina, where the core litigation between Mlazgar and HLI has been pending since December 2022.

Background: HLI Accuses Mlazgar of Breach

At the center of the dispute is a sales representation agreement between Mlazgar and HLI. Mlazgar was contracted to sell HLI products exclusively in defined territories in exchange for commissions and other incentives. HLI alleges that Mlazgar later violated that agreement by also representing Cooper Lighting, one of its direct competitors, in the same territories.

In response, Mlazgar claims the exclusivity provision is unenforceable under South Carolina law and therefore does not constitute a breach. Additionally, Mlazgar has filed its own claims, accusing HLI of using former Mlazgar employees to poach customers and misappropriate trade secrets.

Cooper Lighting Subpoena Sparks New Conflict

In January 2025, HLI issued a subpoena to Cooper Lighting, seeking documents related to its relationship with Mlazgar, including:

• Contracts and communications involving Elan Lighting Systems

• Any agreements between Cooper and Mlazgar from 2020 to 2023

• Information about Mlazgar’s contractual obligations to HLI

• Details of incentives or payments tied to Mlazgar’s decision to represent Cooper

Cooper, headquartered in Georgia, refused to comply, arguing that the request was overly broad and would expose proprietary business information. Mlazgar supported the effort to quash the subpoena, filing its own motion for a protective order.

Georgia Court Defers to South Carolina

Instead of deciding on the merits, the Georgia court agreed to transfer the dispute to South Carolina, citing three main factors:

1. Judicial efficiency – The South Carolina court has already managed nearly three years of discovery and over 250 filings.

2. Risk of inconsistent rulings – With multiple overlapping discovery motions already pending, handling everything in one court ensures consistency.

3. Case complexity – Judge Jacquelyn Austin in South Carolina is deeply familiar with the contractual and trade secret issues at play.

As a result, the Georgia court denied all pending motions—including Cooper’s and Mlazgar’s motions to quash the subpoena—as moot. The South Carolina court will now determine whether Cooper must produce the requested documents.

What’s Next?

With discovery disputes mounting and trial preparations underway, the South Carolina court remains the central venue for this high-stakes legal fight involving representation rights, territorial exclusivity, and alleged corporate misconduct. The lighting industry will be watching closely as the case moves forward.