Chauncey v. H.O Penn Machinery Company, Inc.
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:23-cv-06239
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chauncey v. H.O. Penn, Judge McCarthy denied Caterpillar’s motion to quash a subpoena without prejudice because it was filed in the wrong court.
Non-party Caterpillar Inc. must pursue any challenge to the subpoena in the federal court for the district where compliance is required; the subpoena dispute was not resolved on its merits.
What happened
In Chauncey v. H.O. Penn Machinery Company, Inc., Plaintiffs sought documents and testimony from non-party Caterpillar about a marine engine involved in their lawsuit against H.O. Penn. Caterpillar asked the court to cancel the subpoena, arguing that the court lacked authority over Caterpillar.
The court explained that disputes about a subpoena must be heard by the federal court where compliance is required, not necessarily the court where the lawsuit is pending. Because Caterpillar’s principal place of business is in Irving, Texas, the subpoena required compliance in or near that location, within the Northern District of Texas.
The court therefore ruled that it lacked authority to change or cancel the subpoena and denied Caterpillar’s motion without prejudice. Judge McCarthy directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Chauncey v. H.O Penn Machinery Company, Inc. · No. 7:23-cv-06239
- Cathy Seibel
- Aug. 19, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Jeff Chauncey and Two C’s Marine Holdings, Ltd. sued H.O. Penn Machinery Company, Inc. over alleged failures to diagnose and repair their vessel. The opinion states that Chauncey observed abnormal vibrations and a warning light while operating the vessel, contacted a Caterpillar-authorized mechanic from H.O. Penn, and later found damage to the vessel’s starboard engine. Plaintiffs allege that the vessel eventually required six engine rebuilds and seek damages for related losses.
During this case, Plaintiffs served non-party Caterpillar Inc. with a subpoena demanding documents and testimony concerning a C32 Marine Engine that Caterpillar manufactured in Georgia and sold to an independently owned and operated dealer in Washington in 2005. Caterpillar moved to quash, meaning cancel, the subpoena. Caterpillar argued that the Southern District of New York lacked personal jurisdiction over it.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides that a subpoena must issue from the court where the action is pending, but disputes over compliance generally must be handled by the federal court for the district where compliance is required. For document subpoenas directed to an entity, compliance may be required only at a location within 100 miles of where the entity resides, is employed, or regularly conducts in-person business.
The court relied on Caterpillar’s stated principal place of business in Irving, Texas. It concluded that the subpoena required compliance in or within 100 miles of Irving, which is within the Northern District of Texas. Caterpillar therefore should have filed its motion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, rather than in the Southern District of New York, where the underlying lawsuit is pending.
Because Caterpillar filed its motion in the wrong federal district, the court concluded that Rule 45 did not give it authority to modify or quash the subpoena. The court did not decide the merits of Caterpillar’s personal-jurisdiction argument.
Disposition
Judge Judith C. McCarthy denied without prejudice Caterpillar’s motion to quash the subpoena and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion, docketed as No. 47.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.