Summary
holding that the place of compliance was the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois because the subpoena required the production of documents in Chicago, IL
Summary of this case from United States v. Omnicare, Inc.Opinion
Case No. 3:14-cv-87
04-17-2014
THE SEMEX ALLIANCE, Plaintiff, v. ELITE DAIRY GENOMICS, LLC Defendant.
ENTRY OVERRULING THE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FILED BY JEFF BUTLER (DOC. #25), WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHERE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENAS IS REQUIRED
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Quash Subpoenas, filed by Jeff Butler, on April 15, 2014. Doc. #25. Mr. Butler is a non-party to the above-captioned case. On April 9, 2014, Defendant Elite Dairy Genomics, LLC ("EDG"), served Mr. Butler with two subpoenas at his residence in Springfield, Illinois. The first subpoena was a Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action, commanding Mr. Butler to appear at the offices of Bryan Cave LLP, 161 Clark Street, Suite 4300, Chicago, Illinois 60601, at 10:00 a.m. on April 17, 2014. Doc. #25-1. The second subpoena was a Subpoena Duces Tecum, commanding Mr. Butler to produce emails and documents in his possession that he sent to and received from Plaintiff the Semex Alliance ("Semex"), at the same address, but at 10:00 a.m. on April 16. Doc. #25-2.
Mr. Butler has moved the Court for an order quashing the aforementioned subpoenas under Rule 45(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He argues that the subpoenas were served on him in violation of the geographical limits of Rule 45(c). Rule 45(c)(1) states that "[a] subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only . . . within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person." Similarly, Rule 45(c)(2) states that "[a] subpoena may command [the] production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person." According to Mr. Butler, the Chicago, Illinois address listed on both subpoenas as the place of compliance is farther than 100 miles from his residence, place of employment, or where he regularly transacts businesses, and the subpoenas should, therefore, be quashed. However, the applicable provisions of Rule 45(d)(3) only allow "the court for the district where compliance is required" to quash or modify the subpoena. Subdivision (3)(A) of Rule 45, which sets forth the conditions under which a court must quash a subpoena, as well as Subdivision (3)(B), which sets forth the conditions under which a court may quash the subpoena, both require that such a motion be filed with "the court for the district where compliance is required." Both subpoenas served on Mr. Butler commanded compliance in Chicago, Illinois. The Eastern Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is the federal district court serving Chicago, Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. § 93(a) (dividing Illinois into three federal judicial districts). Thus, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is the "court for the district where compliance is required," not the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Rule 45 was amended on April 16, 2013, effective December 1, 2013, and the previous version of the rule required "the issuing court" to quash or modify a subpoena. The Court notes that the Subpoena to Testify that was served on Mr. Butler contained a photocopied page with the previous text of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of Rule 45, while the Subpoena Duces Tecum was provided with a copy of those subsections of the Rule in their current form. Compare Doc. #25-1 at 4 with Doc. #25-2 at 4. The Court further notes that the forms available from the Court's website for both types of subpoena both contain a copy of the current text of Rule 45.
Rule 45(f) describes the circumstances under which this Court would be able to provide the order Mr. Butler seeks:
When the court where compliance is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances. Then, if the attorney for a person subject to a subpoena is authorized to practice in the court where the motion was made, the attorney may file papers and appear on the motion as an officer of the issuing court. To enforce its order, the issuing court may transfer the order to the court where the motion was made.
Because such a transfer has not occurred, this Court lacks the power to issue the order sought by Mr. Butler. He must seek an order to quash in the court for the district where compliance is required, or seek transfer to this Court under Rule 45(f).
Accordingly, the Mr. Butler's Motion to Quash Subpoenas (Doc. #25) is OVERRULED without prejudice. Mr. Butler may refile his motion in "the court for the district where compliance is required," the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Date: April 17, 2014
/s/_________
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE