Etzkorn v. Princess Cruise Lines, LTD

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel 1 is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must serve a copy of this order and of the underlying motion on the non-party SSM. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 8/24/16. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KAREN KIM ETZKORN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16 MC 490 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This newly-filed miscellaneous case is before me on my review of the file.
Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against defendant in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. In connection with that lawsuit, plaintiff served
a subpoena for the production of documents on a non-party witness, SSM St. Clare
Hospital (SSM), located in Missouri. The subpoena issued by plaintiff required
production of Missouri documents in California. When SSM refused to comply
with the subpoena, plaintiff filed the instant action to compel SSM to comply with
the subpoena and produce the requested documents. Among other problems, there
is no evidence in the file that plaintiff served the motion to compel on non-party
SSM.
Even setting aside the service issue, I cannot grant plaintiff the relief she
seeks. The subpoena requires production of documents from a Missouri witness in

California in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A), which limits the place of
compliance for a subpoena requesting documents to “a place within 100 miles of
where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person . . .
.” The documents provided by plaintiff in support of the motion to compel show
that SSM is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri
and, as such, it cannot be compelled to produce the requested documents in
California. The motion to compel will therefore be denied.
Plaintiff very likely would be entitled to obtain the requested documents in
the event that a subpoena in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 is issued to SSM.
As correctly noted by plaintiff, a validly issued subpoena by a California federal
court is, in fact, enforceable in this district without the need of a subpoena from a
Missouri court, and a Missouri witness refusing to comply with said subpoena may
be held in contempt for its refusal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). SSM’s objections, which
are attached to the motion to compel, thus do not appear to be valid, although
perhaps there are other, valid, objections that SSM might raise.
Plaintiff is required to promptly serve both its original motion and this order
on SSM, and if any future motion is filed, plaintiff must provide a certificate of
service showing that the party against whom it seeks relief has been given notice of
the request for relief.
Accordingly,
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel [1] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must serve a copy of this order
and of the underlying motion on the non-party SSM.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 24th day of August, 2016.

3