Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-09058
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems, Judge Gilliam granted defendants’ motions to quash trial subpoenas for two out-of-state former employees.
Plaintiffs seeking trial testimony from Thomas Schroppe and Martin Kraft, and those witnesses, were affected because the court quashed the subpoenas requiring their live testimony in the Northern District of California. Defendants obtained the requested relief.
What happened
In Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, plaintiffs subpoenaed former defense employees Thomas Schroppe and Martin Kraft to testify live at trial in the Northern District of California. Schroppe lives in South Carolina, and Kraft lives in New York.
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which limits where a subpoena may require a person to attend trial. The court said neither witness lived, worked, or regularly conducted in-person business within 100 miles of the district or in the same state. The court did not decide whether the witnesses’ status as party witnesses could otherwise permit their testimony, noting that the cases plaintiffs relied on predated Rule 45’s 2013 amendments.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted defendants’ motions to quash the subpoenas to Schroppe and Kraft. The court quashed each subpoena.
The detailed version
- Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation · No. 4:22-cv-09058
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 6, 2024
Background
Plaintiffs issued trial subpoenas to former defense employees Thomas Schroppe, associated with Foster Wheeler, and Martin Kraft, associated with Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. The witnesses reside in South Carolina and New York, respectively. Defendants moved to quash, or invalidate, the subpoenas. The motions were docketed as Dkt. Nos. 765 and 772.
Rule and analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) limits a trial subpoena to requiring attendance within 100 miles of where the person resides, works, or regularly conducts business in person. For a party or a party’s officer, the rule also permits attendance within the state where that person resides, works, or regularly conducts business in person. The court concluded that the Northern District of California was neither within 100 miles of nor within the same state as the locations relevant to Schroppe and Kraft under the rule.
Plaintiffs argued that the witnesses could still be compelled to testify because they were party witnesses. The court stated that it did not need to decide that issue. It explained that the cases supporting plaintiffs’ argument predated Rule 45’s 2013 amendments and cited the rule’s advisory committee notes concerning the distance limits.
Disposition
The court granted defendants’ motions to quash the subpoenas to Thomas Schroppe and Martin Kraft. Each subpoena was quashed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.