Jackson et al v. Odenat
Filing
219
MEMORANDUM ORDER: Before the Court are letters from plaintiffs dated October 2 and 8, 2014, and a letter from defendants dated October 7, 2014 (Docket ## 215, 216, 213). Plaintiffs seek to subpoena "for use at trial" the original recording of a "radio interview" given by defendant Lee Q. Odenat in February 2013. Discovery in this case closed in December 2012. Trial is set to begin on November 3, 2014. Notwithstanding this general principle, it is appropriate to use Rule 45 to obtain documents at trial in some circumstances most obviously when it is necessary to introduce the original of a document that was previously the subject of a discovery request. Here, plaintiffs do not contend that they need the original recordin g because their copy will be inadmissible at trial. Accordingly, we consider whether the discovery deadline should be extended for the limited purpose of obtaining the audio recording by subpoena. A request for an extension of a discovery may be gran ted where "good cause" is shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Because Odenat has not stated when he gave this interview, we will accept plaintiffs' assertion that it occurred in February 2013, which was after the close of discovery. Thus plaintiffs have plainly shown "good cause" for making the application after the discovery deadline. While they have provided no explanation for waiting more than a year and a half before seeking to obtain the unedited version, a number of c ircumstances counsel in favor of permitting the subpoena now despite this delay. First, the Court understands that the original is in the hands of a third party and that its production will not require any of the defendants to conduct or be the subje ct of any further discovery. Second, the nature of the evidence is well known to defendant Odenat inasmuch as he was a participant in the interview. Third, the jury could only benefit from having a full as opposed to a partial recording (assuming the recording is admitted into evidence at all). Finally, the discovery is extremely limited in scope. In light of these circumstances, the Court will permit plaintiffs to issue the subpoena provided they do within the next 5 days. ( Ready for Trial by 11/3/2014.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/10/2014) (ama)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
CURTIS JAMES JACKSON, III, et al.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
-against-
MEMORANDUM ORDER
:
09 Civ. 5583 (JFK) (GWG)
:
LEE Q. ODENAT, et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------X
GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court are letters from plaintiffs dated October 2 and 8, 2014, and a letter from
defendants dated October 7, 2014 (Docket ## 215, 216, 213). Plaintiffs seek to subpoena “for
use at trial” the original recording of a “radio interview” given by defendant Lee Q. Odenat in
February 2013. Discovery in this case closed in December 2012. Trial is set to begin on
November 3, 2014.
“Rule 45 subpoenas have been held generally to constitute discovery, and, therefore, are
subject to the same time constraints that apply to all of the other methods of formal discovery.”
Pasternak v. Dow Kim, 2013 WL 1729564, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2012) (citation, internal
quotation marks, and alteration omitted). Thus, “[i]t is black letter law that parties may not issue
subpoenas pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 as a means to engage in discovery
after the discovery deadline has passed.” Joseph P. Carroll Ltd. v. Baker, 2012 WL 1232957, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Eng v.
Blood, 2008 WL 2788894, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 17, 2008) (“Litigants . . . may not use Rule 45
trial subpoenas as an end around expired discovery deadlines.”) (citation omitted); McKay v.
Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 2007 WL 3275918, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2007); Dodson
v. CBS Broad., Inc., 2005 WL 3177723, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2005)).
Notwithstanding this general principle, it is appropriate to use Rule 45 to obtain
documents at trial in some circumstances — most obviously when it is necessary to introduce the
original of a document that was previously the subject of a discovery request. See, e.g., Dodson,
2005 WL 3177723, at * 1 (recognizing the need for a Rule 45 subpoena in the case of “lastminute trial needs (such as for originals of documents where copies were produced in discovery
and there is a need for the original at trial)”).
1
Here, plaintiffs do not contend that they need the original recording because their copy
will be inadmissible at trial. Accordingly, we consider whether the discovery deadline should be
extended for the limited purpose of obtaining the audio recording by subpoena. A request for an
extension of a discovery may be granted where “good cause” is shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
“A finding of good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party.” Grochowski v. Phx.
Constr., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). In assessing whether the moving
party has shown diligence, courts consider whether the proposed modification is based on
“information that the party knew, or should have known, in advance of the deadline.” Sokol
Holdings, Inc. v. BMD Munai, Inc., 2009 WL 2524611, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) (citing
Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir. 2000)).
Because Odenat has not stated when he gave this interview, we will accept plaintiffs’
assertion that it occurred in February 2013, which was after the close of discovery. Thus
plaintiffs have plainly shown “good cause” for making the application after the discovery
deadline. While they have provided no explanation for waiting more than a year and a half
before seeking to obtain the unedited version, a number of circumstances counsel in favor of
permitting the subpoena now despite this delay. First, the Court understands that the original is
in the hands of a third party and that its production will not require any of the defendants to
conduct or be the subject of any further discovery. Second, the nature of the evidence is well
known to defendant Odenat inasmuch as he was a participant in the interview. Third, the jury
could only benefit from having a full as opposed to a partial recording (assuming the recording is
admitted into evidence at all). Finally, the discovery is extremely limited in scope. In light of
these circumstances, the Court will permit plaintiffs to issue the subpoena provided they do
within the next 5 days.
Dated: October 10, 2014
New York, New York
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?