Collins v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al.
Filing
3
ORDER denying 1 Motion to Compel. The Clerk is directed to close this miscellaneous case file. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 06/18/2019. (thb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
SHAWNETTA COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
V.
*
MC 119-008
5
KOCH FOODS, INC., et al..
Defendants,
MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
Respondent.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Shawnetta Collins's motion to
compel a response to a subpoena served on Respondent Management
Services,
a
non-party
to
the
underlying
action.
(Doc.
1.)
Management Services responded to the motion by arguing compliance
is unduly burdensome and seeks to quash or modify the subpoena.
(Doc. 2.)
The Court, however, cannot reach the merits of the
motion because it lacks jurisdiction over the matter.
Therefore,
Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed an action in the Northern District of Alabama
against Koch Foods, Inc., Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC, and Robert
Elrod.
(Collins v. Koch Foods, Inc., 2:18-CV-00211-ACA (N.D. Ala.
Feb. 1, 2018).)
On March 14, 2019, Plaintiff's attorney served
non-party Management Services a subpoena requiring the production
of documents related to Management Services' business relationship
with
Koch
Foods.
(See
Subpoena,
Doc.
1-1.)
The
subpoena
erroneously listed the issuing court as the Middle District of
Alabama,
instead
of
the
Northern
Plaintiff's case is pending.
District
(Id. at 2.)
of
Alabama
where
The subpoena was sent
to Management Services' address in Evans, Georgia, but required
the requested documents to be sent to Plaintiff's attorney's office
in Birmingham, Alabama.
Management
(Id.)
Services
objected
to
the
subpoena
because
it
required compliance more than 100 miles from its offices, it was
unduly burdensome to comply, and it requested confidential and
proprietary documents.
(Mar. 27th Letter, Doc. 1-3.)
In an effort
to resolve the dispute, counsel for Plaintiff offered, via email,
to allow Management Services to electronically send the documents
to a ''local attorney (100 miles from your office)."
Email, Doc. 1-4.)
(May 13th
Management Services still did not comply with
the subpoena, choosing instead to stand by its objections that
compliance
was
unduly
burdensome
confidential and proprietary.
and
the
documents
were
(Id.)
On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a response
to the subpoena in this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure
45(d)(2)(B)(i).
The
motion
makes
only
a
fleeting
reference to this Court's jurisdiction to hear the matter by
stating that a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena must be
made in the court for the district where compliance is required.
(Mot. to Compel, Doc. 1, at 1.)
Management Services filed a
response seeking to quash or modify the subpoena because compliance
is unduly burdensome and the subpoena violates Rule 45's geographic
limitations.
(Doc. 2.)
II. DISCUSSION
A federal court has both the power and the obligation to
inquire into its jurisdiction whenever there is a possibility that
jurisdiction does not exist.
Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R.,
Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985).
Subpoenas are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45,
which underwent substantial revisions in 2013.^
As amended, ^^a
subpoena must be issued by the court where the underlying action
is pending, but challenges to the subpoena are to be heard by the
district court encompassing the place where compliance with the
subpoena
is
required.
Woods
ex
rel.
United
States
v.
SouthernCare, Inc., 303 F.R.D. 405, 406 (N.D. Ala. 2014) (citing
1 Because of the recent amendments, there are limited circuit court opinions
interpreting amended Rule 45 and, as far as the Court's research revealed, none
addressing the specific issues presented by this case.
2 A challenge to a subpoena includes a motion to quash and a motion to compel a
response; both types of motions must be filed in the district where compliance
is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i), (d)(3)(A).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(a)(2),
(d)(3)(A)).
A
subpoena
to
produce
documents must specify the time and place where the documents are
to be provided.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii).
For subpoenas seeking the production of documents, the place
of compliance
must be
^^within
100 miles of
where
the
person
resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A).
The prevailing rule across federal
courts is that a subpoena's place of compliance is the district
where documents are to be produced.
See Westmore Equities, LLC v.
Vill. Of Coulterville, 2016 WL 695896, at *2 (S.D. 111. Feb. 22,
2016) (the location where the subpoena commands the documents be
produced is the place where compliance is required); Montgomery v.
Risen, 2015 WL 12672704, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2015) (same);
Agri-Labs Holdings, LLC v. TapLoqic, LLC, 2015 WL 13655779, at *1
(N.D. Ind. Oct. 20, 2015) (same); Tomelleri v. Zazzle, Inc., 2015
WL 400904, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 28, 2015) (same); Brady v. Lee,
2014
WL
12580025,
at
*2
(S.D.
Fla.
Oct.
29,
2014)
(same);
Narcoossee Acquisitions, LLC v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., 2014 WL
4279073, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2014) (same);
but see Europlay
Capital Advisors, LLC v. Does, 323 F.R.D. 628, 629 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
(court lacked jurisdiction to hear challenge to non-party subpoena
that was served in Northern District of California but required
productions
of
documents
to
law
firm's
office
in
the
Central
District of California because non-party was headquartered in the
Northern
District
of
California).
Despite
some
contrary
authority, the Court will follow the majority rule and concludes
that the place of compliance is the location the subpoena directs
the documents to be sent.
In
reaching
this
conclusion,
the
Court
Holdings, 2015 WL 13655779, instructive.
finds
Agri-Labs
In that case, a non-
party subpoena for documents was issued by the Northern District
of Indiana, was served on the non-party's registered agent in the
same district, and commanded the production of documents to a law
firm in McCordsville, Indiana — a part of the Southern District of
Indiana.
lacked
Id. at *1.
jurisdiction
The Northern District of Indiana found it
over
the
challenge
because
the
subpoena
required the documents to be produced in another district, even
though the subpoena was served within the Northern District of
Indiana.
Id.
Similarly, in Brady, 2014 WL 12580025, a non-party subpoena
to appear for deposition and produce documents was issued by the
Southern District of California to an individual in Miami Beach,
which is part of the Southern District of Florida.
Id. at *2.
The subpoena required the documents to be sent to Orlando, a city
in the Middle District of Florida.
Id.
The Southern District of
Florida concluded the place of compliance was in Orlando, and thus,
the motion to compel was filed in the wrong court.
Id.
The court
specifically noted that ^^because the subpoenas specify that the
place of compliance is Orlando, the fact that [the non-party] was
served
in
Miami
Beach,
Florida
does
not
change
compliance to the Southern District of Florida."
the
place
of
Id. at *2 n.4.
Using the location where the subpoena commands the documents
be produced as the place of compliance is further supported by the
Advisory Committee notes to Rule 45's 2013 amendment.
The comments
regarding changes to Rule 45(c) defining place of compliance
states, ^"[ujnlike the prior rule, place of service is not critical
to place of compliance."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) advisory committee's
notes to 2013 amendment.
Here, the subpoena lists a Birmingham, Alabama address as the
location Management Services must send the requested documents.
Therefore, the place where compliance is required is Birmingham,
which is part of the Northern District of Alabama.^
As such, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion to compel.
Although
Plaintiff
offered
to
change
the
location
the
documents were to be sent, no location was ever specified, and it
is unclear whether Plaintiff was able to secure a location within
100 miles of Management Services' offices.
courts
look to
required."
the
subpoena
to
determine
Regardless,
where
[m]ost
compliance
is
Ellis v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2014 WL 4365273, at *3
(S.D. W. Va. Sept. 2, 2014); see also Paso Del Notre Motors, LP v.
3 28 U.S.C. § 81 (Birmingham is part of the Southern Division of the Northern
District of Alabama).
Kia Motors of Am./ Inc.^ 2015 WL 4939948, at *1-2 (N.D. Tx. Aug.
19, 2015) (document and deposition subpoena required compliance in
Costa Mesa, California, so the Northern District of Texas lacked
jurisdiction to hear a motion to compel supplemental responses;
although the deposition had already taken place within the Northern
District of Texas, that did ''not change the fact that the subpoena,
by its terms, required compliance in Costa Mesa, California").
summarize,
Northern
the
subpoena
District
of
at
issue^
Alabama,
and
requires
compliance
therefore,
this
in
Court
To
the
lacks
jurisdiction to hear the motion to compel.
III. CONCLUSION
Based
on
the
foregoing,
the
Court
concludes
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's motion to compel.
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
it
lacks
Accordingly,
The Clerk is directed to
CLOSE this miscellaneous case file.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
day of June,
2019.
J. RANBj^HALL, SHIEF JUDGE
UNITED/STATES DISTRICT COURT
"HERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
^ The subpoena appears to be invalid on its face because it was issued from the
Middle District of Alabama when the underlying case is pending in the Northern
District of Alabama.
Further, the subpoena requires compliance more than 100
miles from Management Services' offices in Evans.
If the Court did have
jurisdiction, these flaws would permit it to quash or modify the subpoena.
Fed. R. Civ. p. 45(d)(3)(A).
7
See
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?