Molson says right in one of his tweets that he’s been “served with a lawsuit.” As far as I can tell, he hasn’t. He’s been served with a subpoena. Amazon has a right to subpoena evidence from third parties, and they have a right to extend their requests for evidence beyond just what has already been given to the CA AG. They have the right to look for exculpatory evidence, even if it’s more than what’s already been given by Molson. “I don’t have those documents” is an acceptable response to a subpoena, so it’s not like he has to come up with stuff he doesn’t already have. Amazon or the CA AG already having the evidence isn’t a reason to stop them from asking Molson for it.

Molson also has rights. The discovery process isn’t supposed to be used to overwhelm or harass third parties, so he should move to quash if he really is being overwhelmed. This is the reality of our system: if you’re a witness and you’ve got evidence relevant to a case then the parties (and the court) have the right to get it from you. This is especially true when someone is already involved as a witness for one side, as here. Unfortunately, being able to be roped into a lawsuit that you’re not a party to is not only possible but probable in the USA.