Howard University v. Borders
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-04716
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Howard University v. Borders, Judge Liman denied an order compelling a non-party to comply with a subpoena.
The defendants’ request was denied; the non-party subpoena recipient may seek to quash the subpoena in Michigan, and the plaintiff may have its letter treated as a motion to quash under the alternatives described by the court.
What happened
In Howard University v. Borders, the defendants asked the court to force a non-party to comply with a subpoena. The request was based on the plaintiff’s lawyer saying that the plaintiff would ask to cancel or limit the subpoena.
The subpoena required the non-party to appear for a deposition in Birmingham, Michigan, and produce documents. It had been served on October 5, 2020, but the non-party had not failed to appear.
Judge Liman denied the motion. He explained that the non-party could timely ask the Michigan court where compliance was required to cancel or limit the subpoena; alternatively, with the non-party’s consent, this court could accept that request or treat the plaintiff’s letter as such a request.
The detailed version
- Howard University v. Borders · No. 1:20-cv-04716
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 19, 2020
Background
The defendants sought an order compelling a non-party to comply with a subpoena. The subpoena, served on October 5, 2020, required the non-party to appear for a deposition in Birmingham, Michigan, and produce documents. The request was based on plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that the plaintiff would move to quash the subpoena. A motion to quash is a request to cancel or limit a subpoena. The plaintiff opposed the requested order by letter.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that the non-party had not failed to appear. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, the non-party could make a timely motion to quash in the district where compliance was required, which the opinion identified as Michigan. The court also stated that, if the non-party consented, it would accept a timely motion to quash. Alternatively, the plaintiff could elect to have its letter treated as a motion to quash, with an opportunity for an opposition and reply.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ motion to compel. The opinion did not decide whether the subpoena should ultimately be quashed or otherwise limited, and it did not address the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.