Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-09040
- 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 exceeded Rule 45’s geographic limits.
Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A.’s effort to depose Michel Patrick Boisvert was denied; the order means the subpoena could not require him to appear in Washington, D.C., or New York under Rule 45(c)(1), and the court also declined to move the deposition to San Juan or Miami.
What happened
In Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, Preble-Rish asked the court to require Michel Patrick Boisvert to comply with a deposition subpoena served at an airport in Washington, D.C. It said the deposition would seek information about assets and enforcement of its arbitration award.
The court found that the subpoena could not require Boisvert to appear in Washington, D.C., or New York under the federal subpoena rule. Boisvert stated that he lived in Haiti, did not regularly conduct business in Washington, D.C., and had no property or business dealings in New York. The court did not decide whether he had immunity as a government official.
Judge P. Castel denied all three motions to compel. The court also declined to move the deposition to San Juan or Miami because Preble-Rish had not shown that Boisvert lived or conducted business there.
The detailed version
- Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti · No. 1:21-cv-09040
- P. Castel
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. moved to compel compliance with a subpoena seeking the deposition testimony of Michel Patrick Boisvert. The subpoena was issued in 21-cv-4960 (PKC), served on Boisvert at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, and identified him as the Republic of Haiti’s Minister of Economy and Finance. It required him to attend a deposition at Preble-Rish’s counsel’s office in Washington, D.C.
Preble-Rish said the deposition sought information about assets that could be attached to satisfy its judgment and information useful to 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 authorized those contracts while acting for the Ministry of Economy and Finance and representing the Republic of Haiti.
The Republic of Haiti argued that Boisvert was protected by common-law sovereign immunity for information he received or acts he took as a government official. The court stated that it did not need to decide that immunity issue because the motion could be denied on other grounds.
Subpoena limits
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1)(A) generally allows a deposition subpoena to require attendance within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. Rule 45(c)(1)(B) also permits attendance within the state where a person resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person if the person is a party or a party’s officer. The court assumed, without deciding, that a government minister was an officer of the Republic of Haiti under the rule and that the motion was filed in the proper 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, and did not regularly travel to Washington, D.C., to conduct business. He stated that, apart from one trip in April 2022, he had not traveled 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 not do business with New York entities.
Based on those facts, the court concluded that the subpoena could not require Boisvert to appear in Washington, D.C., or New York under Rule 45(c)(1). The court acknowledged that it could modify a properly served subpoena to reduce the burden on a deponent, but said that discretion depended on the subpoena being proper in the first place. The court declined to modify the subpoena to require the deposition in San Juan or Miami because Preble-Rish had not shown that either place was where Boisvert resided or conducted business.
Disposition
Judge P. Castel ordered that the motions filed at 21-cv-4960 (PKC), Doc. 120; 21-cv-6704 (PKC), Doc. 88; and 21-cv-9040 (PKC), Doc. 62, were DENIED. The order did not reach the Republic of Haiti’s common-law sovereign-immunity argument.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.