Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-06704
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Preble-Rish Haiti v. Republic of Haiti, Judge Castel denied motions to compel a deposition because the subpoena violated geographic limits.
Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A.’s motions to compel were denied, and Michel Patrick Boisvert was not required by these subpoenas to appear for a deposition in Washington, D.C., New York, San Juan, or Miami.
What happened
Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. asked the court to require Michel Patrick Boisvert to testify at a deposition in Washington, D.C. Preble-Rish said it sought information about assets and enforcement of an arbitration award. The Republic of Haiti argued that the subpoena was invalid and unenforceable.
The court ruled that the subpoena could not require Boisvert to appear in Washington, D.C., or New York under the federal rule governing deposition locations. Boisvert stated that he lived in Haiti, did not regularly conduct business in Washington, D.C., and had no property or business connections in New York. The court also declined to move the deposition to San Juan or Miami because Preble-Rish had not shown that Boisvert lived or did business there.
The court did not decide the Republic of Haiti’s claim that Boisvert had immunity as a government official. Judge Castel denied the motions filed in all three related cases.
The detailed version
- Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti · No. 1:21-cv-06704
- P. Castel
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. moved to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena served on Michel Patrick Boisvert at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The subpoena identified Boisvert as the Republic of Haiti’s Minister of Economy and Finance and required him to attend a deposition at Preble-Rish’s counsel’s office in Washington, D.C.
Preble-Rish stated that the deposition was intended to obtain information about assets that could be attached to satisfy its judgment and information to help enforce its arbitration award. In other filings, Preble-Rish had argued that the Bureau de Monétisation des Programmes d’Aide au Développement did not have authority to enter the fuel contracts and that Boisvert, acting for the Ministry of Economy and Finance and representing Haiti, authorized them.
The Republic of Haiti argued that the subpoena was invalid and unenforceable. It also invoked common-law sovereign immunity for information Boisvert received or acts he took as a government official.
Court’s analysis
The court did not reach the common-law sovereign-immunity issue because it denied the motion on other grounds. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 generally permits a deposition subpoena within 100 miles of where the person lives, works, or regularly conducts business in person. The rule also permits a subpoena within the state where a party or party officer lives, works, or regularly conducts such business.
The court assumed, without deciding, that a government minister qualified as an officer of the Republic of Haiti under the rule and that the motion had been filed in the proper federal district. Boisvert declared under penalty of perjury that he was a citizen and full-time resident of Haiti, had been appointed Minister of Economy and Finance on March 5, 2020, did not regularly travel to Washington, D.C., and had made only one trip there since becoming minister. He also stated that he owned no property in New York, had not traveled to New York since his appointment, and did no business with New York entities.
Based on those facts, the court concluded that Boisvert could not be required to appear in Washington, D.C., or New York under Rule 45(c)(1). Although a court may modify a proper subpoena to reduce the burden on a person being deposed, the court said that discretion depends on the subpoena’s having been properly issued. The court also declined to modify the subpoena to require the deposition in San Juan or Miami because Preble-Rish had not shown that Boisvert lived or conducted business in either place.
Disposition
The court denied the motions filed in 21-cv-4960 (PKC), 21-cv-6704 (PKC), and 21-cv-9040 (PKC). The order did not state that the motions were denied with or without prejudice. Judge P. Castel therefore resolved the subpoena dispute on the deposition-location requirements without deciding sovereign immunity.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.