Palau v. TMC Transportation Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-03242-JLR
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Palau v. TMC Transportation, Judge Cronan denied defendants’ request to have the court formally approve a subpoena.
The ruling affects the defendants’ effort to obtain information through the subpoena and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority’s response to that subpoena.
What happened
In Palau v. TMC Transportation Inc. and Carlos E. Anaya, the plaintiff seeks damages for alleged injuries from a motor-vehicle accident on the Whitestone Bridge. The defendants served a subpoena on the sergeant involved in the accident investigation and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority.
The defendants asked the court to formally approve the subpoena because the Authority reportedly would not honor it without a judge’s approval. The case’s fact discovery deadline was January 29, 2021, and its expert-discovery deadline was February 26, 2021.
Judge John P. Cronan denied the request. He explained that defendants’ lawyer could issue the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, and that defendants could ask the court to compel compliance if the Authority failed to respond. The defendants must serve a copy of the order on the Authority.
The detailed version
- Palau v. TMC Transportation Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03242-JLR
- John Cronan
- Jan. 11, 2021
Background
Juan A. Palau sued TMC Transportation Inc. and Carlos E. Anaya for damages arising from alleged injuries caused by a motor-vehicle accident on the Whitestone Bridge. Fact discovery was due January 29, 2021, and expert discovery, including depositions, was due February 26, 2021.
The defendants told the court that they had served a subpoena on the sergeant involved in investigating the accident and on the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. According to defendants, the Authority’s policy was not to honor a subpoena unless a judge formally approved it. Defendants therefore asked the court to “so order” the subpoena.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3), which authorizes a party’s attorney to issue a subpoena. The court explained that a subpoena signed by defendants’ counsel is a court mandate sufficient to require compliance. If the Authority does not comply, defendants may move to compel discovery under Rule 37(a) and may request an order requiring the Authority to explain why it should not be held in contempt under Rule 45(g).
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan denied defendants’ request that the court “so order” the subpoena to the Authority. The court directed defendants to serve a copy of the order on the Authority.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.