10/05/2026
City of Birmingham Fights Subpoena Seeking Records from Mayor Randall Woodfin’s Wife’s Real Estate Company About AI Data Center Deal
A new discovery fight has emerged in the lawsuit challenging Birmingham’s massive, proposed AI data center project.
Plaintiffs Robert and Gail Sansome are attempting to subpoena Iron City Premier Realty, seeking extensive records concerning the acquisition and transfer of property connected to the proposed data center.
Iron City Premier Realty is associated with Kendra Woodfin, the wife of Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin. Notably, the subpoena itself specifically identifies Kendra Woodfin within its definition of Iron City Premier Realty and the persons acting on its behalf.
But the City of Birmingham is fighting the subpoena, arguing that the plaintiffs have not shown that Iron City Premier Realty had anything to do with the transactions.
The case is Sansome v. Hoar Construction, LLC, et al., pending in Jefferson County Circuit Court.
On September 18, 2026, the Sansomes filed notice that they intended to subpoena Iron City Premier Realty for documents concerning property located at 201, 250 and 260 Milan Parkway and 2500 Venice Road.
The property is connected to the proposed project described in the subpoena as the “Birmingham AI Factory,” “BHM01,” or a 300-megawatt AI data center.
The plaintiffs say the documents could provide information about the sequence of property transfers, when defendants learned about the property's zoning status, and issues relevant to their equitable claims.
And the subpoena seeks a LOT of information.
Among other things, the plaintiffs want records concerning:
• Who Iron City Premier Realty represented in connection with the property;
• Commissions, referral fees, bonuses and other compensation;
• Closing and settlement documents;
• Purchase agreements, contracts and letters of intent;
• Communications with companies involved in the transactions;
• Communications with the City of Birmingham and Birmingham Industrial Development Board;
• Communications concerning zoning and whether a data center was permitted on the property;
• What Iron City knew about the identity of the ultimate purchaser or developer;
• What Iron City knew about plans to use the property for a data center;
• MLS listings, appraisals, offers and prospective purchasers;
• Escrow and trust-account records; and
• Calendars, meeting invitations and notes concerning meetings involving the property.
The subpoena even seeks relevant communications from business and personal devices and accounts.
The City filed its objection on October 1.
Its primary argument is straightforward:
Where is the evidence that Iron City Premier Realty had anything to do with this deal?
According to the City, the plaintiffs explained the alleged roles of other entities they sought to subpoena but did not explain Iron City's alleged role.
The City also points to three deeds introduced during the preliminary-injunction hearing and says none identifies Iron City Premier Realty, 2812 Elite Realty, or another real-estate broker or agent.
The City therefore characterizes the subpoena as a “fishing expedition.”
The City of Birmingham Says the Subpoena Goes Too Far.
The City also argues that the subpoena exceeds the discovery currently permitted by the court.
According to its filing, remaining discovery is limited to non-party and expert discovery relating to the claims and defenses scheduled for trial on March 8, 2027. The City says the court previously ruled that the Sansomes had closed their evidentiary presentation, subject to rebuttal.
The plaintiffs filed the Iron City notice the following day. The City argues that they are seeking new affirmative evidence rather than permissible rebuttal evidence.
The dispute now presents an interesting question:
Why are the plaintiffs seeking such extensive records from a real-estate company associated with the Birmingham mayor's wife; and why is the City fighting that subpoena?
The City's objection does not establish that Iron City participated in the transaction. In fact, that is precisely what the City disputes.
But the plaintiffs' subpoena seeks records that could potentially reveal whether Iron City had a role, what that role was, whether compensation was involved, and whether communications occurred with City officials or other participants in the project.
Because the City has formally objected, the subpoena should not simply proceed as originally proposed. The plaintiffs would need to seek a court order permitting the discovery.
That means the next fight may be over whether the Sansomes can demonstrate why Iron City Premier Realty, and Kendra Woodfn, are relevant to the Birmingham AI data center litigation.
