Dellaportas v. Shahin
- Victor Marrero
- 1:24-cv-00793
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In John Dellaportas v. Hana Shahin, Judge Figueredo ruled that Microsoft subpoena-compliance motions should be heard in Washington, not New York.
John Dellaportas and nonparty Microsoft Corporation; the order concerns where the subpoena dispute should be heard and does not decide the underlying request for records.
What happened
In John Dellaportas v. Hana Shahin, John Dellaportas asked the Southern District of New York to compel nonparty Microsoft Corporation to comply with a subpoena for records. Microsoft argued that the matter belonged in the Western District of Washington because its headquarters and relevant employees were there.
The court explained that challenges to a nonparty subpoena generally must be heard where compliance is required. It concluded that compliance occurred in the Western District of Washington, even though the documents were to be delivered to Dellaportas’s address in New York and Microsoft had an office in the district.
Judge Valerie Figueredo stated that any motion to compel or challenge Microsoft’s subpoena should be heard in the Western District of Washington. The Clerk was directed to terminate the letter motions filed at ECF Nos. 41 and 47.
The detailed version
- Dellaportas v. Shahin · No. 1:24-cv-00793
- Victor Marrero
- Oct. 29, 2025
Background
Plaintiff John Dellaportas submitted a letter motion seeking to compel nonparty Microsoft Corporation to comply with a subpoena issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Microsoft argued that the motion had to be heard in the Western District of Washington, where Microsoft is headquartered. Dellaportas argued that the Southern District of New York could hear the motion because Microsoft regularly transacts business there.
Court’s analysis
Rule 45 requires a motion challenging a nonparty subpoena to be filed in the court for the district where compliance is required. Microsoft represented that it is headquartered in Redmond, Washington, and that the employees responsible for searching for and producing the requested records work from Microsoft’s Redmond office.
The court explained that courts disagree about whether compliance with a document subpoena occurs where the documents must be delivered or where the nonparty produces them. It stated that courts in the Second Circuit generally treat compliance as occurring at the nonparty’s residence. The court also noted that courts in the circuit have generally held that a subpoena to a nonparty entity can require compliance only in the district where the entity is headquartered or within 100 miles of its headquarters.
The court found that the Western District of Washington was the appropriate district because Microsoft was headquartered there and the employees responsible for producing the information worked there. The court also stated that Dellaportas had not cited a case supporting his interpretation that Microsoft’s substantial New York office made the Southern District of New York an appropriate forum.
Disposition
The court stated that any motion to compel Microsoft’s compliance with the subpoena, or any motion by Microsoft to quash it, should be heard in the Western District of Washington. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the letter motions at ECF Nos. 41 and 47. The order did not state that either motion was granted or denied.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it determines the proper court to hear a subpoena dispute without deciding the underlying dispute over the requested records.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.