Atwood v. Cheney et al

Filing 195

ORDER denying 167 Motion to Transfer Compliance Motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 3/24/2016. (rrz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION

DAVID GARLAND ATWOOD, II

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 1:12CV168-SA-DAS

MIKE CHENEY,
ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion (#167) to transfer compliance
motions and seeks an order transferring all compliance motions relating to Mississippi Farm
Bureau Casualty Insurance Company to this court—the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen Division. Previously, plaintiff served a subpoena
duces tecum on Farm Bureau’s Vicksburg, Mississippi office, which commanded it to produce
certain documents pertaining to the insurance policy it maintains for Emmett Atwood’s lake
house. According to the motion, Farm Bureau has steadfastly refused to comply with the
subpoena because, pursuant to company policy, no insurance documents can be turned over to
third parties unless the insured consents. Emmett Atwood has not consented to turning over the
documents to plaintiff. In light of Farm Bureau’s non-compliance, plaintiff has filed several
compliance-related motions, including motions for sanctions, a motion to compel, as well as a
motion ordering Farm Bureau to show cause.
Plaintiff submits that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) authorizes this court—the
court that issued the subpoena—to transfer motions concerning the subpoena from the court in
which they were filed. However, plaintiff’s application of Rule 45 fails on two fronts. First,
every compliance motion pertaining to Farm Bureau (known to this court) has been filed in this

court. Therefore, there are no compliance motions pending in other courts to transfer. Second,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) does not authorize the issuing court to unilaterally transfer
a compliance motion filed in another court back unto itself. Rather, “[w]hen the court where
compliance is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a motion under this rule to the
issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional
circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to transfer compliance motions
is hereby denied.
SO ORDERED this, the 24th day of March, 2016.
/s/ David A. Sanders
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE