Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc.
- Kimba Wood
- 1:99-cv-10175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Patsy's Brand v. I.O.B. Realty: Judge Wood quashed a subpoena requiring Brian Roffe to testify at a contempt hearing.
Nonparty Brian Roffe was no longer required by this subpoena to appear in person at the September 26, 2024 contempt-motion hearing; Patsy's Brand, Inc.’s subpoena was quashed.
What happened
In Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., a nonparty, Brian Roffe, asked the court to quash a subpoena from Patsy's Brand, Inc. The subpoena sought Roffe’s in-person testimony at a September 26, 2024 hearing about a contempt motion.
Roffe argued that the subpoena conflicted with the court’s hearing procedures, provided too little time to comply, and required him to travel more than 100 miles to attend. The court’s order addressed the subpoena under the federal rule governing where subpoenas may require a person to attend.
Judge Kimba M. Wood quashed the subpoena served on Roffe on September 19, 2024, because it violated that rule. The order did not separately rule on the other reasons Roffe gave.
The detailed version
- Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. · No. 1:99-cv-10175
- Kimba Wood
- Sept. 24, 2024
Background
Patsy's Brand, Inc. sought Brian Roffe’s in-person testimony at a September 26, 2024 hearing concerning Patsy's Brand’s motion for contempt. Roffe was a nonparty respondent. The subpoena was sent to his counsel on September 19, seven days before the hearing.
Roffe moved to quash, meaning to invalidate, the subpoena. He argued that the subpoena improperly bypassed procedures the court had established for witness testimony, did not provide a reasonable amount of time for compliance, and violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)’s 100-mile limit. The letter motion stated that Roffe resided and worked in Palm Beach County, Florida, and did not regularly conduct business in person in the Southern District of New York.
Ruling
The court quashed the subpoena served on Roffe on September 19, 2024, “on the ground that it would violate FRCP 45(c).” The order did not separately resolve the motion’s arguments concerning the hearing procedures or the amount of notice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.