Pirnik et al V. Robert Bosch, LLC

Filing 11

ORDER TRANSFERRING 1 Petition to enforce subpoena to the Southern District of New York. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VICTOR PIRNIK, et al.,
Petitioners,

Case No. 18-11101
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,

Related/Underlying Case:
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 15-07199
Honorable Jesse M. Furman

Respondent.
____________________________/
ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION TO ENFORCE
SUBPOENA TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Before the Court is a Petition to Enforce Subpoena Served on Respondent
Robert Bosch, LLC (“Bosch”). The subpoena was issued in connection with a class
action lawsuit pending in the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Jesse
M. Furman: Pirnik, et al. v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V., et al., Case No. 15-07199.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) grants the Court discretion to “transfer a
motion under [Rule 45] to the issuing court if . . . the Court finds exceptional
circumstances exist.” Id.; see also Williams v. Big Picture Loans LLC, No. 17-80166,
2018 WL 707605, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018) (“Whether to transfer a subpoenarelated motion to the issuing court is committed to the discretion of the court where
compliance is required.”).
“To determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, ‘courts consider several
factors, including the complexity, procedural posture, duration of pendency, and the
nature of the issues pending before, or already resolved by, the issuing court in the
underlying litigation.’” In re Subpoena of Autoliv Asp, Inc., No. 16-51669, 2016 WL
8201043, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2016) (quoting Duck v. United States Sec. & Exch.

Comm’n, 317 F.R.D. 321, 323 (D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2016)). The Advisory Committee Notes
further explain that “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) Advisory Comm. Note (2013). However, “[t]ransfer
is appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with
the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion.” Id.
The Court finds that exceptional circumstances warrant transferring this petition
to the issuing court, the Southern District of New York. The underlying case and the
issues presented in the petition are complex; Judge Furman has resolved several other
discovery issues and issues related to those presented in the petition; resolution of the
petition requires interpretation of a scheduling order and may affect other discovery
related issues; and transfer is warranted to avoid possible disruption of the issuing
court’s management of its case and a July deadline to complete fact discovery.
These interests outweigh Bosch’s interest in obtaining local resolution. Bosch
does not raise any particular interest in local resolution of the petition, but rather only
recites Rule 45’s default of local resolution where no exceptional circumstances exist.
As Petitioners point out, transfer to the Southern District of New York will not burden
Bosch; its lead counsel’s law firm, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, is
headquartered in New York.
Moreover, as suggested in the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 45(f), the Court
consulted with Judge Furman regarding this matter, and he agrees that transfer is
appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) Advisory Comm. Note (2013) (“Judges in

2

compliance districts may find it helpful to consult with the judge in the issuing court
presiding over the underlying case while addressing subpoena-related motions.”).
Accordingly, the Court TRANSFERS the Petition to Enforce Subpoena Served
on Respondent Robert Bosch, LLC to the Southern District of New York.
Per Judge Furman’s request, the Court ORDERS the parties to contact his
chambers for a status conference.
Respondent Bosch’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply [Doc. 10] is MOOT.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: May 3, 2018

3