Bogard Construction, Inc. v. Oil Price Information Service, LLC.

Background

The Maryland court consolidated two proceedings involving subpoenas issued in connection with In re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation, pending in the Northern District of California. The gasoline plaintiffs alleged that the gasoline defendants conspired to inflate wholesale gasoline prices and manipulated Oil Price Information Service, LLC’s daily price reports. The plaintiffs and defendants in that California litigation subpoenaed OPIS, a nonparty, for documents concerning gasoline sales data and communications during the relevant period.

OPIS refused to produce records under either subpoena. The gasoline plaintiffs and defendants separately moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to compel compliance. OPIS moved under Rule 45(f) to transfer the subpoena dispute to the Northern District of California, the court that issued the subpoenas.

Analysis

Rule 45 generally directs subpoena-compliance disputes to the district where compliance is required. Rule 45(f), however, permits that court to transfer the dispute to the issuing court if the subpoenaed nonparty consents or if exceptional circumstances exist.

The court held that OPIS’s consent supplied sufficient grounds for transfer. It reasoned that Rule 45’s main concern is protecting nonparties from the burden of litigating subpoena disputes, and OPIS’s consent eliminated the need for that protection in this situation. The court rejected the argument that Rule 45 did not give OPIS a choice of forum.

The court also found that exceptional circumstances independently supported transfer. The Northern District of California had managed the complex underlying litigation for two years and was better positioned to assess the subpoenas. In addition, OPIS argued that the California court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying case, making that court the appropriate forum to consider a challenge to its own authority.

Disposition

Judge Paula Xinis granted OPIS’s motion to transfer the matter to the Northern District of California. The opinion did not resolve the motions to compel or decide whether OPIS was required to produce the subpoenaed documents.