Russell v. Kiewit Energy Group, Inc. et al

Filing 136

ORDER denying 129 motion to enforce subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 11/12/2020. (amh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RANDALL H. RUSSELL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KIEWIT ENERGY GROUP, INC., et al.,)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 2:18-cv-2144-KHV

ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion to compel third-party Point
Wireless Brokers, LLC (“eSquared”) to respond to a subpoena served by plaintiff on
August 24, 2020 (ECF No. 129). The motion is denied because it has been filed in the
wrong court. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i), a motion to compel compliance with a
subpoena must be filed in “the district where compliance is required.”1 The subpoena

1

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).

1
O:\ORDERS\18-2144-KHV-129.DOCX

commands eSquared to produce documents at the Reavey Law office 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 compel compliance with the subpoena or otherwise
provide the relief requested by plaintiff. As such, the motion to compel compliance is
denied without prejudice to refiling in the district where compliance is required.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 12, 2020, at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ James P. O=Hara
James P. O=Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2

ECF No. 129-2.
The court suggests plaintiff’s counsel confer with defense counsel about
developing an agreed list (with names and phone/device numbers) of Kiewit employees
terminated in March and April 2016 to address eSquared’s concerns on that front and
effectively eliminate the burden of complying with the disputed portions of the subpoena.
Perhaps a measured approach could eliminate the expense of briefing this issue in another
forum.
3

2
O:\ORDERS\18-2144-KHV-129.DOCX