Sides et al v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc.
ORDER granting 90 Motion to Quash, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 6/11/12. (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JUDY WEEKES-WALKER, et al.,
MACON COUNTY GREYHOUND
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-895-MEF
Now pending before the court is the motion to quash, or, in the alternative, motion for
protective order (Doc. 90) filed by the Defendant, Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc.
Having considered the motion and the subpoena, the court concludes that the motion to quash
is due to be granted, albeit for a fundamental defect not asserted in Macon County
Greyhound Park’s motion.
On May 15, 2012, Attorney David Selby issued a subpoena from the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.1 (Doc. 90-1). The subpoena commanded
the law firm of Cobbs, Allen, & Hall (“Cobbs Allen”) to produce certain documents. Id. p.
6. The subpoena states that Cobbs Allen’s office is located in Birmingham, Alabama. The
subpoena states that the subpoenaed documents are to be produced at the law firm of Bailey,
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3), “An attorney ... may issue and sign a subpoena as an officer
of: (A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or (B) a court for a district where a deposition
is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the
action is pending.”
Glasser, LP in Birmingham Alabama. Id. The court notes that Birmingham, Alabama, is
located within the Northern District of Alabama, not the Middle District of Alabama.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs the issuance of subpoenas for the
production of documents by nonparties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (c) (“As provided in Rule 45,
a nonparty may be compelled to produce documents and tangible things or to permit an
inspection.”). Among other matters, “[Rule] 45 governs the territorial limitations regarding
where [non-party] depositions are to be taken or where documents are to be produced.” Ariel
v. Jones 693 F.2d 1058, 1060 (11th Cir. 1982). Rule 45(a)(2)(C) requires that a subpoena
for the production of documents “must [be] issue[d] ... from the court for the district where
the production or inspection is to be made.”
Because Birmingham, Alabama, is not located within the Middle District of Alabama,
this court has no power to issue a subpoena that requires Cobbs, Allen, to produce documents
in Birmingham. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2)(C); see also Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America
v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1406 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[A] federal court sitting in one
district cannot issue a subpoena duces tecum to a non-party for the production of documents
located in another district.”). Therefore, regardless of whether the plaintiffs are otherwise
entitled to discovery of the documents in question, the subpoena is invalid on its face and is
due to be quashed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2)(C); see also James v. Booz-Allen &
Hamilton, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 15, 19 (D.D.C. 2002) (“Because the place of production and
inspection in this case is outside of the judicial district of this court, the subpoena is improper
and is therefore quashed.”).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Macon County Greyhound Park’s motion to quash (Doc. 90) be and
is hereby GRANTED.
Done this 11th day of June, 2012.
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?