United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. James U.S. Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Objection to,
and Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum as Served Upon Essar
Products (USA) LLC (ECF No. 70). Defendants request an order
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 quashing the subpoena served by
Plaintiff upon non-party Essar Products (USA) LLC
preliminary matter, the Court finds Defendants have standing
to move to quash or object to the Essar subpoena. Generally,
only the party or person to whom the subpoena is directed has
standing to move to quash or otherwise object to a
subpoena. “A motion to quash or modify a
subpoena duces tecum may only be made by the party to whom
the subpoena is directed except where the party seeking to
challenge the subpoena has a personal right or privilege with
respect to the subject matter requested in the
subpoena.” Because the information requested from
non-party Essar includes contracts, invoices, correspondence
and other documents between Essar and Defendant Bedeschi, the
Court finds that Defendants have a personal right with
respect to the documents and ESI requested in the Essar
subpoena. This right gives them standing to object to the
issuance of the subpoena.
Court next considers whether it has authority to rule on the
motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A), which
was amended effective December 1, 2013, provides:
timely motion, the court for the district where
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical
limits specified in Rule 45(c);
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected
matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
45(f) sets out the circumstances for transfer of a
subpoena-related motion from the district where compliance is
required to the district that issued the subpoena.
basis for Defendants' motion to quash the Essar subpoena
is that Plaintiff served the subpoena three days before the
September 22, 2017 discovery deadline and therefore the
October 3, 2017 compliance date will be after the discovery
period has closed. The Court construes Defendants to be
arguing the Essar subpoena fails to allow a reasonable time
for compliance. As this is one of the grounds for quashing or
modifying a subpoena under Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(i), it requires
action by the court for the district where compliance with
the subpoena is required.
subpoena that Defendants seek to quash was issued from the
District of Kansas but commands Essar, a company with a
Minnesota addresses, to produce ten requested categories of
documents and electronically stored information
(“ESI”) for inspection in Duluth,
Minnesota.Because the subpoena requires Essar produce
the requested documents and ESI in Minnesota, the subpoena
thus requires compliance in Minnesota and not Kansas.
any indication the motion to quash the Essar subpoena was
transferred to this Court pursuant to Rule 45(f) from the
district where compliance is required, this Court is without
authority to rule on the motion to quash the subpoena and,
therefore, will not rule on the substantive arguments
asserted by Defendants relating to the motion.
THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Defendants'
Objection to, and Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum as
Served Upon ...