BOIMAH FLOMO et al v. BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDING, INC., et al

Filing 541

ORDER denying defts' 505 Motion to Compel (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/7/2010. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION BOIMAH FLOMO, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. BRIDGESTON AMERICAS HOLDING, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related to Disciplinary Action and Lawsuit Against Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Judy Okawa (the "Motion to Compel"). [Dkt. 505.] There, Defendants complain that Dr. Okawa hasn't produced all the documents required of her pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum that, as is relevant here, called for documents relating to professional discipline and professional lawsuits against her. [See dkt. 506-2 at 3.] They want a Court order requiring her to do so now. Because Defendants seek to enforce a subpoena, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 controls. And under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a party who has served a subpoena is "entitled to the materials identified in the subpoenas only pursuant to an order of the district court from which the subpoena[] w[as] issued." In re Digital Equipment Corp., 949 F.2d 228, 231 (8th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). Unless and until the issuing court relinquishes

1:06-cv-00627-WTL-JMS

jurisdiction to the court presiding over the underlying litigation--and a split of authority exists as to whether the issuing court can ever relinquish jurisdiction--the "federal court presiding over the main legal proceeding...lacks subject matter jurisdiction" to enforce the subpoena. Fisher v. Hamilton, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 4075, *7 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2006) (citations and footnote omitted).

-1-

Here, Defendants seek to enforce a subpoena issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to obtain discovery in this action. [See dkt. 506-2.] As the record doesn't indicate that that issuing court has ever relinquished jurisdiction over its subpoena, Defendants ask this Court for relief that this Court is jurisdictionally unable to provide. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is DENIED.1 06/07/2010
_______________________________ Jane Magnus-Stinson United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only: Terrence P. Collingsworth CONRAD & SCHERER [e-mail] Katie J. Colopy JONES DAY [e-mail] Rafael S. Garcia CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP [e-mail] C. Christopher Groves JONES DAY [e-mail] Piper M. Hendricks CONRAD & SCHERER 1156 15th St., NW, Suite 502
1

Even if this Court had jurisdiction to consider the merits, under the circumstances presented, the probative value of the additional discovery on this ancillary matter to the merits is likely outweighed the burden of compliance and would thus be improper. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(2)(iii). -2-

Washington, DC 20003 Paul L. Hoffman SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN 723 Ocean Front Walk Suite 100 Venice, CA 90291 Kimberly D. Jeselskis JESELSKIS LAW OFFICES, LLC [e-mail] Christian Alexandra Levesque CONRAD & SCHERER [e-mail] Mark J. R. Merkle KRIEG DEVAULT LLP [e-mail] Robert A. Mittelstaedt JONES DAY [e-mail] Marc T. Quigley KRIEG DEVAULT LLP [e-mail] Thomas A. Rector JONES DAY [e-mail] Michael L. Rice JONES DAY [e-mail] Benjamin Schonbrun SCHONBRUN DeSIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP [e-mail] Kasper Sorensen CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP [e-mail] David L. Wallach JONES DAY -3-

[e-mail]

-4-