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

Subpoenas — Under 2013 Amendments to Rule 45, Parties and Their Officers May Not Be Subpoenaed to Travel More Than 100 Miles or Outside Their States of Residence or Business

Download PDF

Havens v. Maritime Commc’ns/Land Mobile, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68786 (D.N.J. May 20, 2014):

I. Introduction

On April 25, 2014, defendant Touch Tel Corporation ("Touch Tel") moved to quash trial subpoenas issued by MCLM to Robert Cooper, its president, and David Kling, its chief engineer.  [*2] (D.E. 223.) Defendant Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC ("MCLM") opposes the motion. (D.E. 239.) The Court will grant the motion to quash.

II. Factual Background

Cooper and Kling live and work in California, and do not regularly transact business in person in New Jersey. (Certif. of Kenneth D. Friedman ("Friedman Cert.") ¶¶ 3-5 [D.E. 223-2].) In March 2013, plaintiffs deposed both of them in California, and MCLM appeared at the depositions by telephone. (Friedman Cert. ¶ 6.) Several weeks later, plaintiffs and defendants Paging Systems, Inc. and Touch Tel1 entered into a settlement agreement,2 and, thereafter, defendant MCLM moved for summary judgment on the Sherman Act § 1 claim pending against it. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.)

1   Consistent with MCLM's references in its papers, the Court sometimes refers to Paging Systems and Touch Tel collectively as "PSI-TT."

2   The Court issued an order and opinion on May 14, 2014, enforcing this settlement agreement. (D.E. 250, 251.)

At a June 6, 2013 pretrial conference, MCLM's counsel handed the subpoenas to Touch Tel's counsel, who was in attendance. (Friedman Cert. ¶ 9; Certif. of Robert W. Mauriello, Jr. ("Mauriello Cert.") ¶ 4 [D.E. 239-1].) Touch Tel characterizes  [*3] them as subpoenas to Cooper and Kling; MCLM characterizes them as subpoenas to "designated representatives" of PSI-TT. (Friedman Cert. ¶ 9; Mauriello Cert. ¶ 4.) The subpoenas specified no date or time for the required testimony. (Friedman Cert. ¶ 10; Exhs. 1-2.)

The Court denied MCLM's motion for summary judgment on March 20, 2014, and a pretrial conference was scheduled for April 1, 2014. (Friedman Cert. ¶ 11.) The following day, on March 21, 2014, MCLM emailed a letter to Touch Tel's counsel purporting to "amend" the subpoenas to Cooper and Kling "'to reflect the new trial dates' established in the Order denying [MCLM's] motion for summary judgment." (Id. ¶ 12; Exh. 3.)

A week later, on March 28, 2014, Touch Tel's counsel, in correspondence to MCLM's counsel, objected to the trial subpoenas on the grounds that they were "defective and unenforceable," and requested that they be withdrawn.3 (Id. ¶¶ 13-14; Exh. 4.) MCLM declined, both in response to this request, and in response to Touch Tel's counsel's request at the April 1, 2014 pretrial conference. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17; Exh. 5.) Touch Tel's motion to quash followed.

3   The letter indicated that Friedman had been authorized by Touch Tel to  [*4] represent Cooper and Kling with respect to the subpoenas.

III. Discussion

The text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 is squarely on point. Under Rule 45(c)(1), "[a] subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:

   (A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or

   (B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person

   (i) is a party or a party's officer; or

   (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense."

Under the rule, therefore, a subpoena can only require a person -- whether party, nonparty, or party officer -- to travel 100 miles from where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person to appear at trial. There are two narrow exceptions: first, if a party or party officer, the person can be compelled to appear for trial anywhere within the person's state of residence, employment, or in which the person regularly transacts business in person; and second, if a nonparty, the person can also be compelled to appear for trial anywhere in that state if he, she, or it "would not incur substantial  [*5] expense" in doing so. Touch Tel's brief states the point concisely: "Thus, whether an officer of a party or not, under Rule 45(c) a person cannot be compelled to travel more than 100 miles to attend at trial if the place of trial is not in the state where the witness resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person." (Opening Br. [D.E. 223-1] at 5.) A straightforward application of the rule mandates that subpoenas issued to Cooper and Kling, California residents who work in California and do not regularly transact business in person in New Jersey [Friedman Cert. ¶¶ 3-5], cannot compel them to appear for a trial in New Jersey.

MCLM attempts to get around the rule's limits by arguing that the subpoenas were issued to Cooper and Kling as an officer and designated representative, respectively, of PSI-TT, not to Cooper and Kling as individuals, and that because PSI-TT regularly transacts business in person in New Jersey, it can be subpoenaed to appear for trial in New Jersey. MCLM's position, therefore, is that the subpoenas issued to Cooper and Kling are really subpoenas issued to the company.4

4   Providing some support for MCLM's argument is that the face of the subpoenas list  [*6] the person's name, followed by a parenthetical with PSI-TT's names, then "c/o" PSI-TT's counsel. So, the Cooper subpoena is directed to:

   Mr. Robert Cooper (defendants Paging Systems, Inc. and Touch-Tel Corp.) c/o Kenneth Friedman, Esq.

(Friedman Cert. Exh. 1.) In the Kling subpoena, the same language appears, only with "Mr. David Kling." (Id., Exh. 2.) By specifically naming people, however, MCLM's intent becomes less clear. In a similar scenario, in which the "subpoenas set forth the names of the individuals directed to appear and only parenthetically identif[ied] them as officers of" the company, the District of Delaware held that "the only inference to be drawn from the subpoenas" and the notices of deposition, which didn't even have the parenthetical, was "that they were directed to the named individuals," not to the company. Application of Johnson & Johnson, 59 F.R.D. 174, 177 (D. Del. 1973). Thus, personal service on those individuals was required, rather than service on the corporate agent. Applying this logic to the Cooper and Kling subpoenas, the parenthetical with PSI-TT's names does not transform them into subpoenas issued to the companies (despite the listing of a specific  [*7] person's name), nor does it catapult those named persons to party status for purposes of compliance with the subpoenas.

The recent amendments to Rule 45 sharply undermine this argument, however, as they were intended to circumscribe the Court's authority to compel parties and officers to travel to faraway trials. The Advisory Committee's notes on the 2013 amendments to Rule 45 indicate that the changes made to the rule "resolve a conflict that arose . . . about a court's authority to compel a party or party officer to travel long distances to testify at trial; such testimony may now be required only as specified in new Rule 45(c)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory committee's note (emphasis added). As the Advisory Committee explained:

   Because Rule 45(c) directs that compliance may be commanded only as it provides, these amendments resolve a split in interpreting Rule 45's provisions for subpoenaing parties and party officers. Compare In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 438 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. La. 2006) (finding authority to compel a party officer from New Jersey to testify at trial in New Orleans), with Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 213 (E.D. La. 2008) (holding that  [*8] Rule 45 did not require attendance of plaintiffs at trial in New Orleans when they would have to travel more than 100 miles from outside the state). Rule 45(c)(1)(A) does not authorize a subpoena for trial to require a party or party officer to travel more than 100 miles unless the party or party officer resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person in the state.

Id. See also Gregory P. Joseph, Major Changes in Federal Subpoena Practice, 82 U.S.L.W. 584, Oct. 22, 2013 ("This amended Rule 45(c)(1)(B) is designed to reverse decisions that have compelled senior corporate officers to travel across the country to testify at trial. Whatever judicial power may currently exist to do this -- and the cases are in conflict -- it is withdrawn effective Dec. 1.").

MCLM's argument that Cooper, as an officer, must appear in New Jersey for trial ignores both the text and the spirit of the rule, which expressly mentions both parties and officers of parties -- indicating recognition that officers are distinct entities from parties for purposes of the rule -- and provides protection against situations, as here, where the officer (or party) would have to travel across the country to testify  [*9] at trial.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

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