Gorodnitsky v. Home Depot U.S.A.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-09903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Simon Gorodnitsky v. Home Depot, Judge Stein declined to act on Home Depot’s proposed subpoena orders because court approval was unnecessary.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s proposed requests for court-signed orders concerning subpoenas to nonparty witnesses were affected; the opinion does not state whether the subpoenas were ultimately served or enforced.
What happened
Simon Gorodnitsky v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. concerns Home Depot’s proposed orders directing compliance with two subpoenas for people who are not parties to the case. Home Depot submitted the proposed orders for the court’s signature under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Home Depot did not explain why it believed court approval was required. The court noted that, to its knowledge, the rules do not require court approval before an attorney issues or serves a subpoena on a nonparty witness.
Judge Stein ordered that the court would not act on Home Depot’s requests. The opinion does not state that the subpoenas themselves were quashed or that any claims were resolved.
The detailed version
- Gorodnitsky v. Home Depot U.S.A. · No. 1:24-cv-09903
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
On August 12, 2025, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. submitted proposed orders for the court’s signature. The proposed orders would direct compliance with two subpoenas that Home Depot intended to serve on nonparty witnesses under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Home Depot did not submit a letter explaining why it was seeking court approval for the subpoenas. The court stated that, to its knowledge, such approval was not necessary. It cited Rule 45, which permits an attorney authorized to practice in the issuing court to issue and sign a subpoena, and a prior decision stating that the Federal Rules do not require court permission before an attorney issues or serves a subpoena on a nonparty.
Ruling
Judge Stein stated that the court did not intend to act on Home Depot’s requests. The order does not state that the subpoenas were quashed, denied, or otherwise invalidated, and it does not resolve the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.