Galgano v. County of Putnam, New York

Background

The Individual County Defendants asked the court to “So Order”—that is, formally approve as a court order—Rule 45 subpoenas directed to the Westchester County Department of Information Technology, the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, and grievance committees for specified judicial districts. The request was made by letter-motion dated May 18, 2021.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allows an attorney authorized to practice before the relevant court to issue a subpoena without a judge’s signature. A court may nevertheless approve a subpoena in its discretion, particularly when the recipient is subject to privacy rules or has a policy requiring a court order, and when the requested materials are clearly relevant.

Here, the defendants’ counsel did not identify any law, regulation, or policy requiring court approval. The court also found that at least some of the requested materials were plainly confidential in the ordinary sense and appeared, at most, only tangentially related to the lawsuit. For those reasons, the court declined to place its approval on the subpoenas.

Ruling

Judge Davison denied the Individual County Defendants’ motion and directed the Clerk to close the motion at docket entry 553. The defendants may serve subpoenas issued by their attorneys if they comply with Rule 45(a)(4). The subpoena recipients may comply or seek relief through motions to cancel or limit the subpoenas, as their policies may require. The opinion also noted that the plaintiff may seek relief to the extent he has the legal right to do so.

Effect

The order denied court approval of the subpoenas; it did not state that the defendants were barred from serving attorney-issued subpoenas that comply with Rule 45.