Global Association of Risk Professionals v. Global Institute of Financial…
Global Association of Risk Professionals, Inc. v. Global Institute of Financial Professionals
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-05207
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Global Association of Risk Professionals v. Global Institute of Financial Professionals, Judge Castel denied the defendant’s letter application challenging a subpoena ruling.
The ruling affected Global Institute of Financial Professionals’s challenge to the subpoena for Mr. Jay Hines and the planned deposition involving the parties.
What happened
Global Association of Risk Professionals, Inc. v. Global Institute of Financial Professionals concerned whether a subpoena for Mr. Jay Hines was properly served. The defendant had previously asked the court to cancel the subpoena, and the court ruled that service was effective and denied that request.
The defendant then submitted a letter application disagreeing with that ruling. It argued that service was incomplete because the subpoena and the required witness and mileage fees were not delivered together, and because the check was made out to another person. The defendant, Mr. Hines, and the plaintiff had nevertheless agreed to proceed with the deposition unless the court directed otherwise.
Judge P. Kevin Castel denied the letter application on October 26, 2022. The opinion text does not provide an explanation for the denial beyond the order itself.
The detailed version
- Global Association of Risk Professionals v. Global Institute of Financial… · No. 1:21-cv-05207
- P. Castel
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
The defendant, Global Institute of Financial Professionals, submitted a letter application concerning an earlier ruling about service of a subpoena on Mr. Jay Hines. The opinion states that, during a May 24, 2022 hearing, the court ruled that service was effective and denied the defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena.
The defendant disagreed with that ruling. It argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1) requires delivery of the subpoena together with the statutory witness fee and mileage allowance when attendance is required. According to the defendant, an initial delivery at Mr. Hines’s office did not reach him. The defendant further argued that an assistant later scanned and sent only the first page of the subpoena, without the witness fee, and that Mr. Hines did not receive the subpoena and check until after the subpoena had expired. The defendant also asserted that the check was payable to Leo Gureff and therefore could not be cashed by Mr. Hines.
The defendant, Mr. Hines, and the plaintiff had agreed that the deposition would proceed on May 27, 2022, unless the court ordered otherwise.
Ruling
Judge P. Kevin Castel denied the letter application, identified as Document 99. The order did not state additional reasoning for the denial. The disposition addressed an ancillary subpoena-service dispute rather than the underlying claims between the parties.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.