New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

May District Court in District in Which Subpoena Issues Remit Motion to Quash to Court Presiding over Underlying Litigation? Circuit Split

Download PDF

Nat’l Benefit Programs, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137946 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 1, 2011):

There is a split in the Circuits regarding whether the court sitting in the district where the subpoena issued may properly exercise its discretion to "remit" a motion to quash for ruling by the court where the underlying litigation is pending. In re Subpoenas Served on Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and Goodwin Proctor LLP, 255 F.Supp. 2d 1, 2 & n.2 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing cases). The Eighth Circuit has suggested that such a remittal from the court issuing the subpoenas is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d). See In re Digital Equip. Corp., 949 F.2d 228, 231 (8th Cir. 1991). In her Order, however, Judge Deavers found that the Ohio District Court lacked authority to transfer the motion to quash to this Court, citing Prosonic Corp. v. Baker, No. 2:08-MC-007, 2008 WL 1766887, at *1 (S.D. Ohio April 7, 2008.) Doc. No. 86-1, at 6. Consistent with the law in the Ohio district, Judge Deavers did not remit the motion to quash to this district. But the Ohio District Court did stay its proceedings pending this Court's ruling on the motion for protective order, effectively remitting the matter for ruling by this Court. See Floorgraphics, Inc v. News American Mkting In-Store Servs., Inc., No. 07-27(PJS/RLE), 2007 WL 1544572, at *2 (D. Minn. May 23, 2007) (holding that to "remit" does not denote a literal transference of a motion, but rather, a deferral of a ruling until the Court responsible for the underlying action has an occasion to address the issue); Prosonic, 2008 WL 1766887, at *2 (noting, "many times the court from which the subpoena has issued will 'remit' the matter to the other court by directing the parties to engage in motion practice before that court.") (citations omitted).

Inasmuch as the documents at issue are in the custody and control of NBP, this Court has jurisdiction to rule on the motion for protective order. That authority, coupled with the Ohio District Court's stay of proceedings pending this Court's ruling on the motion for protective order, form the basis of this Court's authority to rule on the motion for protective order. In re Digital Equip. Corp., 949 F.2d at 231.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice