I can't say that I understand what presentation they are talking about, because the lawsuit doesn't describe it, other than to say that a link to it in a Dropbox account was posted on the IPA web site, and that they want to know who is
[email protected] (or similar, I just looked quickly at the lawsuit on PACER).
When they are talking about "fleet plans", it certainly could be the case that some jr execs put together a presentation about buying Atlas, and, according to the lawsuit, presented it to "at least one Senior Executive", but that hardly means that anything is in the works. It's like an opinion, and we know what opinions are like -- everybody has one.
The actual paperwork on this thing is pretty-generic. There are no affidavits supporting anything that the lawyers allege, and the existence, importance, etc. of this information is only very-generically described. One has to take the lawyers' word for it that things are as they say, as there is nothing even approaching admissible evidence to support their contentions. And contentions like "several UPS pilots had copies of the powerpoint at a pilot's meeting", with no date, time, or information about how they purport to know that -- no direct evidence of that assertion -- is pretty weak. I certainly know a some judges that would want a lot more than this before granting expedited discovery and ordering a response in 5 days. Although the order requires a response in 5 days, a "response" to a subpoena in a civil case can be an objection, which then postpones the obligation to produce the information until the Court can address it or the parties work out an agreement. Presumably, the IPA will lodge objections and make Alston & Bird put some meat on the bones of their application vis a vis the Union website, and there are probably also some labor law issues that could be raised in response, as the requests are so broad in some places that the assertion could be made that they are fishing far beyond the waters they are claiming to be in. Although the order requires a response in 5 days, a "response" to a subpoena in a civil case can be an objection, which then postpones the obligation to produce the information until the Court can address it or the parties work out an agreement.
But Yahoo! and the powers that be at APC aren't obligated to spend their own resources to protect the privacy of the persons involved and probably much of an incentive to do so. And the breadth of information that UPS has requested is pretty-scary, including the identity of everyone that looked at the information in question -- EVERYONE.