Opinion
No. 06 C 5158.
February 24, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Beverly Robinson, issued a subpoena to a non-party, C. Robert Kidder, for a deposition in Detroit, Michigan. She issued it from this court, however, and therein lies the rub. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2) requires that a subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition — or document production — shall issue from the district court for the district in which the deposition — or document production — will occur. Thus, only a district court in the Eastern District of Michigan could issue a subpoena to Mr. Kidder. See Amgen, Inc. v. Kidney Center of Delaware County, Ltd., 95 F.3d 562, 564 (7th Cir. 1996); U.S. ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc., 444 F.3d 462, 468 (6th Cir. 2006); In re Sealed Case, 141 F.3d 337, 341 (D.C. Cir. 1998). So, the subpoena must be quashed. Moreover, if Ms. Robinson properly issues this subpoena and Mr. Kidder still has any issues with it — he raises some here, requesting a protective order — those must be resolved in the issuing court, not here. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(A); Pogue, 444 F.3d at 468; In re Sealed Case, 141 F.3d at 341.
"Ms. Robinson is the most sophisticated and knowledgeable pro se plaintiff with whom I have dealt. She is, without question, the equal of a good many lawyers, and she has substantial litigation experience against Morgan Stanley in other, extensive litigation, which involved many of the same factual issues involved here." Robinson v. Stanley, 2009 WL 3233909, *1 (N.D.Ill., 2009). Thus, the way in which the subpoena to Mr. Kidder was handled could scarcely have been a mistake. But even if it were, the result would be the same. Although courts are required to liberally construe pro se pleadings, pro se litigants, like Ms. Robinson, are not excused from compliance with the rules of procedure. Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008). Accord In re Gunartt, 2009 WL 4730391, 2. (7th Cir. 2009). Indeed, the Supreme Court in McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) stressed that "procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation" are not to "be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel."
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of non-party C. Robert Kidder to quash the subpoena [# 164] is GRANTED. His motion for a protective order barring his deposition is DENIED.