Sadid v. Idaho State University et al

Filing 226

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER sustaining and in part and overruling in part 224 Defendant's Objection to trial subpoenas. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
HABIB SADID, an individual,
v.

Plaintiff,

IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY,
ARTHUR VAILAS, RICHARD
JACOBSEN, GRAHAM GARNER,
DAVID BEARD, and JOHN/JANE
DOES 1 through X, whose true identities
are presently unknown,

Case No. 4:11-cv-00103-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Defendants.

Defense counsel has objected to two subpoenas in this case – one for Jesse Stoler,
and the other for David Miller. See Dkt. 224.
Mr. Miller resides in Wisconsin – well outside the subpoena power of this Court.
Thus, he cannot be compelled to attend trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P.(c)(1)(A). Dr. Sadid will
be permitted to present relevant, admissible deposition testimony from Mr. Miller at trial,
however. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4).
As for Mr. Stoler, the Court has concluded that he will be permitted to testify at
trial. Earlier this week, the Court entered an order indicating that Mr. Stoler could testify
at trial if he had been disclosed in Rule 26 disclosures. See Dec. 10 Decision, Dkt. 223,
at 4. The Court anticipated Mr. Stoler would have been identified given that he is such
an obvious witness in this case: He authored the November 18, 2009 article that is at the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

center of Dr. Sadid’s defamation suit. Now, however, it appears that Dr. Sadid did not
include this witness in his Rule 26 disclosures.
The Court concludes that the failure to disclose Mr. Stoler was harmless because
he was such an obvious witness that his identity must have been known to the defendants.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (advisory committee notes to 1993 amendments; El Ranchito,
Inc. v. City of Harvey, 207 F. Supp. 2d 814, 818 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (failure to disclose
persons known to opposing party and “obvious” subjects for deposition was “harmless”).
He will therefore be permitted to testify at trial.
ORDER
It is ordered that Defendant’s objection to trial subpoeneas (Dkt. 224) is
sustained in part, and overruled in part as follows:
1. Mr. Miller need not comply with the trial subpoena issued to him because he
lives beyond the subpoena powers of the Court.
2. Mr. Stoler will be permitted to testify at trial.
3. The Court declines to issue sanctions at this time.

DATED: December 12, 2013
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2