Driftless Area Land Conservancy et al v. Huebsch et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 11/13/2020: GRANTING 4 Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Case; TRANSFERRING CASE to the U.S. District Court for the W.D. Wisconsin; and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to take all appropriate steps to effectuate the transfer. (cc: all counsel)(jm) [Transferred from Wisconsin Eastern on 11/13/2020.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DRIFTLESS AREA LAND
CONSERVANCY and WISCONSIN
WILDLIFE FEDERATION,

Case No. 20-MC-44-JPS

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL
HUEBSCH, REBECCA VALCQ,
COMMISSIONER ELLEN NOWAK,
and PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WISCONSIN,
Defendants.
On October 30, 2020, Robert Garvin (“Movant”) filed a motion to
quash a subpoena in this Court, seeking relief from a subpoena issued by
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in Case No. 19CV-1007. (Docket #1, #2). On October 31, 2020, Plaintiffs Driftless Area Land
Conservancy and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation filed an expedited nondispositive motion to transfer this subpoena dispute to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. (Docket #4). On November 9,
2020, Movant responded that he consents to the transfer of his pending
motion to quash. (Docket #5). For the reasons explained below, the Court
will grant the motion to transfer the case.
Generally, a motion to quash a subpoena should be filed in “the
district where compliance is required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) permits the “court where compliance is
required” to transfer a motion to quash a subpoena “to the issuing court . . .

if the court finds exceptional circumstances.” A court “weighing transfer
under Rule 45(f) must carefully balance the ‘interest of the nonparty in
obtaining local resolution of [a subpoena-related] motion’ against the
interest ‘in ensuring the efficient, fair and orderly progress of ongoing
litigation before the issuing court.’” In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust
Litig., 306 F. Supp. 3d 372, 375 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Judicial Watch, Inc. v.
Valle Del Sol, Inc., 307 F.R.D. 30, 34 (D.D.C. 2014)). Courts consider whether
the transferee judge will be more familiar with the legal and factual issues
at play, as well as the consequences that the motion to quash might have on
the litigation. Id. (quoting In re UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. of Puerto Rico Sec. Litig.,
113 F. Supp. 3d 286, 288 (D.D.C. 2015)).
Here, the underlying case involves Plaintiffs’ challenge to a decision
by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. The subpoena at issue
requires that Movant, a nonparty to the lawsuit, give deposition testimony
via remote video conferencing. If forced to appear, Movant claims that he
plans to appear from his home in Delafield in Waukesha County,
Wisconsin. Thus, Movant argues in his motion to quash that the Eastern
District of Wisconsin is the proper court to hear the motion because it is
“the district where compliance is required.” (Docket #2 at 11 (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)).
During the almost year-long pendency of this case, the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin has issued similar subpoenas
to third parties in this case, resolved multiple discovery-related motions,
and is considering several more discovery-related motions currently
pending before it. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin is more familiar with the underlying issues at play in this case.
Further, Movant does not oppose the transfer of this case to the U.S. District
Page 2 of 3

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin and does not express interest in
obtaining resolution of this matter in the Eastern District of Wisconsin as
opposed to the Western District of Wisconsin.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Docket #4) be and
the same is hereby GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action be and the same is
hereby TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin for all further proceedings.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all appropriate steps to
effectuate the transfer of this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 13th day of November, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3