Adderley v. Three Angels Broadcasting Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 6

ORDER TRANSFERRING 1 Motion to Quash: The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/5/2019. (jmp2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID LAWRENCE ADDERLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:19-MC-00045-NJR

THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING
NETWORKS, INC., ROY HUNT, JR,
and JAMES W. GILLEY,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This case involves a charitable trust and real property located in Long Island,
Bahamas (S.D. Fla. Case No. 18-cv-23362 (“Florida Case”), Doc. 1). The plaintiff, David
Lawrence Adderley, is a dual citizen of the United States and the Bahamas and resides in
Miami-Dade County, Florida (Id.). He brought this suit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, where it is currently pending (See Florida Case).
In June 2019, Adderley served a subpoena on ATLAS CPAs & Advisors, PLLC
(“ATLAS”), which was issued by the Southern District of Florida (Doc. 1, Ex. 1). ATLAS
is a non-party that conducts business in Marion, Illinois, which is located in the Southern
District of Illinois (Doc. 1). The subpoena seeks fifty-four categories of documents from
ATLAS related to accounting services ATLAS rendered for Defendants Three Angels
Broadcasting Networks, Inc. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1).
On July 19, 2019, ATLAS filed a motion to quash the subpoena in this Court

(Doc. 1). ATLAS argues the subpoena is unduly burdensome because the vast majority
of the subpoenaed records are protected by accountant-client privilege; include
confidential and sensitive financial and estate planning information of non-parties that
bear little relation to the dispute; include thousands of documents spanning a twentyyear period; and are currently only available in paper form and stored in ATLAS’s offsite
storage (Id.). ATLAS estimates that assembling and reviewing the records would require
approximately sixty hours of work from clerks, a manager, partner CPAs, and a senior
managing partner (Id.). Because the proper place for compliance with the subpoena
would be within the Southern District of Illinois, this Court has jurisdiction over this
motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d). Under Rule 45(d),
On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required
must quash or modify a subpoena that: (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.
But “[w]hen 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.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(f).
Transfer under Rule 45(f) “allows for consolidation of motions in a single appropriate
court, thereby avoiding piecemeal litigation in multiple fora as well as piecemeal
appeals.” P.H. Glatfelter Co. v. Windward Prospects Ltd., 847 F.3d 452, 458 (7th Cir. 2017).
The Advisory Committee note to Rule 45(f) explains,
The prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject
to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a

superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions. In some
circumstances, however, transfer may be warranted in order to avoid
disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation, as
when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion or the
same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts. Transfer is
appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty
served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion.
Here, this Court did not issue the subpoena, and ATLAS’s main argument that the
documents are irrelevant, cumulative, and burdensome weigh in favor of transfer. The
argument “emphasizes the need for the court where the underlying matter lies to decide
the matter,” because “the court with the most familiarity with the case is better positioned
to determine whether the documents are indeed relevant” and could “better balance
whatever relevance exists against the need to protect” non-parties. Patriot Nat. Ins. Grp.
v. Oriska Ins. Co., 973 F. Supp. 2d 173, 176 (N.D. N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013). This case involves
complex issues (demonstrated by Adderley’s twenty-count complaint), and the Southern
District of Florida has already ruled on discovery disputes (Florida Case, Doc. 117).
Moreover, there is an ongoing issue of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, and the
parties are currently conducting discovery to determine whether complete diversity is
present among the parties (Florida Case, Doc. 120).
In sum, the Southern District of Florida is well-acquainted with the facts of this
case and is in the superior position to resolve the motion to quash. Given the jurisdictional
uncertainties and the risk of disrupting the management of the underlying litigation, the
Court finds that the interests favoring transfer outweigh ATLAS’s interests in obtaining
local resolution of the motion to quash.

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer this matter to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 5, 2019
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge