Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti

Background

Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. asked the court to compel compliance with a subpoena requiring Michel Patrick Boisvert, the Minister of Economy and Finance for the Republic of Haiti, to testify at a deposition. Preble-Rish intended to use the deposition while trying to locate assets that could be attached to satisfy an arbitration award.

In a September 30, 2022 order, the court assumed that Boisvert was an officer of the Republic of Haiti, which was a party to the action. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, the court concluded that Boisvert could not be required to appear in Washington, D.C., or New York, based on a declaration stating that he did not regularly travel to either place.

Motion for Reconsideration

Preble-Rish moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies controlling decisions or facts the court overlooked that could reasonably change the result. It is not a vehicle for repeating arguments already decided or presenting new theories in response to the court’s ruling.

Preble-Rish made two arguments. First, it argued that the court had incorrectly applied Rule 45’s geographic limits and that those limits did not apply to depositions of parties. The court rejected that argument. It said the earlier order had expressly assumed that Boisvert was an officer of a party and had applied Rule 45(c)(1)(B), which permits a subpoena to require a party or party’s officer to attend within the state where that person resides, works, or regularly conducts business in person. The court also distinguished depositions conducted by notice under Rule 30, for which a subpoena may not be required, from Preble-Rish’s deposition, which sought enforcement of a Rule 45 subpoena. Because Preble-Rish used a subpoena, the court held that Rule 45 applied.

Second, Preble-Rish argued that the earlier order conflicted with a decision from another judge in the Southern District of New York. The court held that another district court decision was not a controlling decision supporting reconsideration. It further stated that, even if that decision were considered, it would not change the result because it did not discuss Rule 45’s geographic limits and primarily concerned sanctions under Rule 37.

Disposition

Judge Kevin Castel denied Preble-Rish’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF 129. The opinion does not state any additional disposition of the underlying arbitration award or asset-attachment effort.