Waheed v. Rentoulis
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-06476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Waheed v. Rentoulis, Magistrate Judge Ricardo denied Waheed’s motion to compel subpoena compliance, find contempt, and issue an arrest warrant.
Sehra Waheed and the people named in her subpoena, including the defendants whose compliance, contempt, and arrest she sought.
What happened
Sehra Waheed v. Nickolaos Rentoulis concerns Waheed’s effort to recover property she alleges was improperly taken and auctioned. She asked the court to force people named in a subpoena to take property and deliver it to her, and also requested an arrest warrant based on alleged crimes.
The court said Waheed could not serve the subpoena herself because she is a party. It also found no authorization for electronic service, no indication that the parties had completed the required discovery conference, and that the subpoena improperly sought the return of property rather than testimony or records. The court also explained that private parties do not prosecute crimes.
Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo denied the motion to compel subpoena compliance, for a contempt finding, and for an arrest warrant. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Waheed v. Rentoulis · No. 1:24-cv-06476
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 15, 2024
Background
Waheed brought the action to recover property she alleges was improperly taken and auctioned. She moved to compel the defendants to comply with a subpoena, hold them in contempt of court, and issue an arrest warrant. She asserted that the subpoena was served on October 30, 2024, and alleged that the defendants violated New York Penal Law § 155.42 through theft of her personal and business property.
Subpoena and Contempt Request
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which governs subpoenas. The rule permits a person who is not a party to serve a subpoena and requires delivery of a copy to the named person. The proof of service stated that Waheed herself served the subpoena electronically by email and through a court site. Because Waheed is a party, she could not serve the subpoena under Rule 45.
The court also found that electronic service was not proper in these circumstances. The record did not show that the subpoena recipients consented to electronic service or that Waheed obtained court authorization to use a method other than personal delivery. In addition, the record did not show that Waheed had conferred with the other parties before seeking discovery, as generally required by Rule 26(f), or that an exception authorized her to seek discovery before that conference. The subpoena was therefore premature.
The court further held that, even if the subpoena had been properly authorized and served, it was being used improperly. Subpoenas require people to testify at a deposition or court proceeding or to produce documents and records. The court found that Waheed appeared to be using the subpoena to obtain the return of the property at issue, which is not a proper use of a subpoena. Because there was no evidence that the subpoena was properly authorized and served, the named persons could not be ordered to comply or held in contempt for failing to respond.
Arrest-Warrant Request
The court denied Waheed’s request for an arrest warrant based on the alleged violation of New York Penal Law § 155.42 and other alleged legal violations. It explained that crimes are generally prosecuted by the government, not by private parties. Because Waheed is a private party, the court denied this request.
Disposition
The court denied Waheed’s motion to compel compliance with a subpoena, for a contempt finding, and for an arrest warrant. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 43.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.