Kadant Johnson, Inc v. D'Amico et al

Filing 377

ORDER dismissing 324 Motion to Quash; dismissing 325 Motion to Quash; dismissing 326 Motion to Quash; dismissing 327 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. (Reference: 10-2869, 11-36)(car, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KADANT JOHNSON, INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 10-2869 c/w 11-36

JOSEPH V. D’AMICO ET AL.

SECTION “C” (2)

ORDER ON MOTIONS
APPEARANCES: None (on the briefs)
MOTIONS:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Defendants’ Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena Issued to
Fulton Systems, Inc., Record Doc. No. 324
Defendants’ Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena Issued to
Mechanical Equipment Company, Record Doc. No. 325
Defendants’ Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena Issued to
E.S. Constant, Record Doc. No. 326
Defendants’ Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena Issued to
Maier America, Record Doc. No. 327

O R D E R E D:
(1) (2) (3) (4) : DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) controls
disposition of these motions. In the absence of transfer to this court, see United States
v. Star Scientific, Inc., 205 F. Supp. 2d 482, 484-88 (D. Md. 2002) (and cases cited
therein), the Rule is “clear that motions to quash, modify, or condition the subpoena
[issued to non-parties] are to be made in the district court of the district from which the
subpoena issued.” 9A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Civil 3d § 2463.1 at 485 (Thomson West 2008) (citing Brown v. Braddick,
595 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979)) (hereinafter “Wright and Miller”) (additional citations
omitted) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A) and (B). “It is the issuing court
that has the necessary jurisdiction over the party issuing the subpoena and the person
served with it to enforce the subpoena.” Wright and Miller, § 2463.1 at 485. In this case,
the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, District of Oregon
and the Western District of North Carolina–not this court–have the authority to quash or
modify the subpoenas.
In addition, the subpoena recipients themselves, not the defendants, are in the best
position to assert and prove their undue burden or the need to protect their confidential

or commercially sensitive materials, if any, in response to the subpoenas. “A motion to
quash, or for a protective order, should be made by the person from whom the
documents, things, or electronically stored information are requested. Numerous cases
have held that a party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena absent a showing that the
objecting party has a personal right or privilege regarding the subject matter of the
subpoena.” Wright and Miller, § 2463.1 at 487-88 (citing cases). If the subpoena
recipients assert that the subpoenas are unduly burdensome, their burden should not be
increased by requiring them to litigate here, rather than in their home courts that issued
the subpoenas.

29th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _________ day of February, 2012.

JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2