SK Energy Americas, Inc. v. Oil Price Information Service, LLC

Background

The opinion concerns two consolidated proceedings in the District of Maryland involving subpoenas issued by the Northern District of California in In re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC. The California litigation alleges that gasoline purchasers were harmed by a conspiracy to inflate wholesale gasoline prices. The gasoline plaintiffs and defendants subpoenaed nonparty Oil Price Information Service, LLC (OPIS) for sales data and communications concerning gasoline trading and price reporting.

OPIS is described as a private oil and gas price-reporting service headquartered in Rockville, Maryland. It refused to produce records under either subpoena. The gasoline plaintiffs and defendants filed separate motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to compel compliance, and the Maryland court consolidated the proceedings.

Transfer request

OPIS moved under Rule 45(f) to transfer the subpoena proceedings to the Northern District of California, the court that issued the subpoenas and was handling the underlying litigation. The gasoline plaintiffs and defendants argued that the dispute should remain in Maryland because it was OPIS’s home district and because Rule 45 is intended to protect subpoenaed nonparties from litigating in distant courts.

Court’s analysis

Judge Paula Xinis explained that Rule 45(f) permits the court handling a subpoena-compliance dispute to transfer it to the issuing court when the subpoenaed person consents or when exceptional circumstances exist. The court concluded that OPIS’s consent was enough to support transfer. It reasoned that the rule’s main concern is protecting nonparties from the burden of subpoena litigation, and OPIS had chosen to consent to proceedings in the issuing court.

The court also found exceptional circumstances supporting transfer. The Northern District of California had managed the complex underlying litigation for two years and was better positioned to evaluate the subpoenas. In addition, OPIS argued that the California court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying lawsuit. Judge Xinis concluded that the court whose jurisdiction was being challenged was best suited to address that issue.

Disposition

The court granted OPIS’s motion to transfer and ordered that the matter be transferred to the Northern District of California. The opinion did not decide whether OPIS had to comply with the subpoenas or whether the subpoenas should be quashed.