CVR Energy, Inc. v. Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz
ORDER denying 1 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 12/7/2017. (amh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CVR ENERGY, INC.,
Case No. 17-mc-0222
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ, et al.,
This matter comes before the court on the motion of Edmund Gross to quash a
subpoena served by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (ECF No. 1). The motion is denied
because it has been filed in the wrong court. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A), a motion
to quash a subpoena must be filed in “the district where compliance is required.”1 The
subpoena commands Mr. Gross to appear for a deposition at the law office of Berkowitz
See also Rule 45(d)(1) (court for the district where compliance is required must
enforce the issuer’s duty to take steps to avoid imposing undue burden); Rule 45(d)(3)(B)
(court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify a
subpoena in certain instances); Rule 45(e)(2)(B) (a party who receives information
produced in response to a subpoena over which a claim of privilege is asserted may
present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is
required for a determination of the claim); Rule 45(g) (providing for a finding of
contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena by the court for the district where
compliance is required).
Oliver, LLP, in Kansas City, Missouri.2 Because the place of compliance (i.e., Kansas
City, Missouri) is not in the District of Kansas, this court cannot quash the subpoena or
otherwise provide the relief requested by Mr. Gross. As such, the motion to quash the
subpoena is denied without prejudice to refiling in the district where compliance is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 7, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O=Hara
James P. O=Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge
ECF No. 2-1.
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?