Piercy v. Wilhelmi et al

Filing 19

ORDER - Defendant's Motion to Quash or Transfer, (filing no. 1 ), is denied without prejudice to reassertion consistent with this order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AARON PIERCY, as Administrator of the
Estate of Dale Piercy;
8:16CV209
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

KELLY WILHELMI, individually and in his
capacity as Sheriff of Whiteside County; et. al;
Defendants.
Defendants Julie Warkins, Dan Williams, and Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc.
have filed an action to quash subpoenas or in the alternative to transfer their motion to the United
States District Court for the District of Illinois. (Filing No. 1). For the following reasons, the
motion will be denied.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois. To facilitate that litigation, he
served numerous third party subpoenas, nationwide, on county entities which contracted with
Defendant Advanced Correctional Healthcare (“ACH”). The subpoenas demand production of
information concerning the counties’ contracts with ACH. Of the counties served, Jefferson
County and Hall County are located in Nebraska.

Defendants Julie Warkins, Dan Williams, and ACH ask this court to either quash the
subpoena as seeking irrelevant and burdensome information, or to transfer the motion to quash
under Rule 45(f). This court must first address the motion to transfer: If the motion to quash
should be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, this court should not address the merits
of Defendants’ objections to the subpoenas served on Jefferson and Hall County, Nebraska.

Rule 45(f) allows for the transfer of motions regarding third-party subpoenas where
exceptional circumstances exist. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). However, the Advisory Committee Notes
for the Rule 45(f) indicate that the “prime concern” in transfer is “avoiding burdens on local

nonparties subject to subpoenas.” Advisory Committee Notes to 2013 Amendment to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45, subdivision (f)).
The local counties did not file the motion to quash or to transfer, and based on the court’s
record, the motion was not served on the counties. The court does not know if the counties would
object or consent to a 45(f) transfer, and there is no evidence regarding the Counties’ burden of
challenging the subpoenas in the Northern District of Illinois.

Before addressing the merits of the above-captioned action to quash, the counties subject
to the subpoenas must be served with the motion and have an opportunity to 1) state whether
they oppose the motion, and 2) explain any burden they will bear if the merits of the motion to
quash are litigated in the Northern District of Illinois.

Accordingly,
IT IS THEREBY ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion to Quash or Transfer, (filing
no. 1), is denied without prejudice to reassertion consistent with this order.

Dated this 22nd day of June, 2016
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge

2