Opinion
Case No. 2:13-cv-388
10-16-2014
STEPHEN M. HILL, Plaintiff, v. HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC., Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant's October 15, 2014 motion to quash Plaintiff's October 13, 2014 trial subpoena. (ECF No. 44.) The October 13, 2014 trial subpoena, which replaced an earlier, deficient subpoena, is directed to an unidentified corporate representative of Defendant and seeks to compel the corporate representative to appear and testify at trial. (ECF No. 40.) Defendant objects to the subpoena on multiple grounds, which include noting that Plaintiff is incorrectly seeking to issue a trial subpoena to an unnamed corporate representative, that the subpoena does not comply with the geographical limitations set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1), that the subpoena fails to provide Defendant a reasonable time in which to comply, and that Plaintiff failed to tender the Rule 45(b)(1) fee.
The Court agrees with Defendant that all of these deficiencies exist. Perhaps most significantly, Plaintiff has again conflated the procedures of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) with Rule 45 practice. This is not permissible because Rule 30(b)(6) "may not be used in conjunction with Rule 45 to serve a subpoena on a corporation for purposes of securing trial testimony without naming a particular individual." In re Otero Cnty. Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., No. 11- 11-13686 JL, 2014 WL 184984, at *10 (Bankr. D.N.M. Jan. 15, 2014). See also Dopson-Troutt v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 295 F.R.D. 536, 539 (M.D. Fla. 2013); Hill v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 88-5277, 1989 WL 87621, at *1 (E.D. La. July 28, 1989).
Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3)(A), a court "must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . fails to allow a reasonable time to comply," that "requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c)," or that "subjects a person to undue burden." The Court therefore GRANTS the motion to quash Plaintiff's October 13, 2014 trial subpoena. (ECF No. 44.) The subpoena at issue is hereby quashed.
To the extent that Plaintiff might argue that the September 29, 2014 subpoena remains viable, Plaintiff would be incorrect. As this Court noted in its October 14, 2014 Order, the second subpoena superseded the first. (ECF No. 43.) Moreover, the first subpoena suffered from the same deficiencies as the second subpoena, as well as at least one additional deficiency.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE