Naprstek v. Marriot International, Inc.

Background

Pro se plaintiff Lubos Naprstek served nonparty Elliott Shriftman with a deposition notice and interrogatories. Shriftman filed a letter stating that he believed using those discovery tools against a nonparty was improper and declined to comply.

Court’s analysis

The court agreed that Shriftman did not have to comply with either request.

For the deposition notice, the court explained that a person’s attendance at a deposition may be compelled by a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Although a pro se plaintiff cannot issue a subpoena himself, the Clerk of Court must issue one to a requesting party when the rule’s requirements are met. The court stated that, if Naprstek wants to depose Shriftman, he must obtain a subpoena from the Clerk and must give Marriot notice and a copy of the subpoena before serving it, as required by Rule 45(a)(4).

For the interrogatories, the court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 allows interrogatories to be served only on parties to the litigation. Because Shriftman is a nonparty, he was not required to answer Naprstek’s interrogatories.

Disposition and additional directions

The order did not require Shriftman to comply with the deposition notice or interrogatories. It reminded Naprstek that he could seek free legal advice from the New York Legal Assistance Group’s legal clinic and clarified that the clinic is not part of the court and cannot file papers for him. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave directed Marriot to promptly serve Naprstek with the order and directed the Clerk of Court to mail him a copy.