Parker v. Bursor
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-00245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Parker v. Bursor, Judge Tarnofsky denied defendants’ motion and quashed Peter Plaut’s subpoena for remote hearing testimony.
The ruling affected the defendants’ attempt to require non-party Peter Plaut to testify remotely at the scheduled hearing and relieved Plaut of the subpoena’s virtual-testimony requirement.
What happened
In Parker v. Bursor, the defendants asked the court to require non-party Peter Plaut to testify by video at a February 26, 2025 hearing. Plaut said he had lived and worked in the United Kingdom since 2016, although he regularly visited his parents in New Jersey.
The court ruled that a federal subpoena cannot require a person to attend a hearing more than 100 miles from where the person lives, works, or regularly conducts business in person. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that remote testimony avoided this limit and found that the evidence did not establish that Plaut lived or worked within 100 miles of the court.
Judge Tarnofsky denied the defendants’ motion to compel Plaut’s remote testimony and quashed the subpoena requiring it. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Parker v. Bursor · No. 1:24-cv-00245
- Tarnofsky
- Feb. 24, 2025
Background
The defendants filed a letter motion asking the court to compel non-party Peter Plaut to provide remote video testimony at a hearing scheduled for February 26, 2025. Plaut did not have a lawyer. In emails filed on the docket, he stated that he had lived in the United Kingdom since 2016 and had been employed by London-based firms during that period. He also stated that, since summer 2021, he had regularly visited his elderly parents at their home in New Jersey.
Plaut also said that he could not provide text messages with the plaintiff because they were set to delete automatically. The defendants argued that Plaut lived in New Jersey when they served the subpoena, that evidence showed he lived and worked near New York City, and that the 100-mile limit did not apply to remote testimony.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 allows a district court where a case is pending to issue a subpoena requiring a person to attend a hearing. Rule 45(c)(1) limits the place of attendance to within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person.
The court held that this limit applies even when the requested testimony will be provided remotely. The rule concerns the location of the proceeding the person is required to attend, not the distance the person would need to travel. The court therefore concluded that the subpoena was enforceable only if Plaut lived, worked, or regularly conducted business in person within 100 miles of the court.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized that Plaut’s statements were not sworn and therefore did not have the same evidentiary value as a statement made under penalty of perjury. But the court also noted that Plaut was not a lawyer and did not have a lawyer representing him in this matter, and it found that his emails provided some indication of truthfulness.
The court found that the evidence submitted by the defendants was equally consistent with Plaut living and working in London while spending significant time in New York and New Jersey visiting his parents. The court also noted that Plaut said he had provided documents about his residence and place of business to the plaintiff’s counsel, from whom the defendants could request them.
Disposition
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky denied the defendants’ letter motion to compel Plaut to provide remote video testimony at the February 26 hearing. The court quashed the subpoena requiring Plaut’s virtual testimony and directed the clerk to terminate the motion, docket entry 301.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.