CSS, Inc. v. Herrington
354 F. Supp. 3d 702
N.D. Tex.2017Background
- CSS, Inc. (plaintiff in an S.D. W. Va. case) and non-parties Kofile Technologies Group, Inc. and Kofile Technologies, Inc. were served with Rule 45 subpoenas issued from the Southern District of West Virginia directing production to a Dallas law office (with notices indicating a preference for electronic delivery to West Virginia counsel).
- CSS and the Kofile Entities filed a Motion to Quash and for Protective Order in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) challenging the subpoenas as untimely and burdensome after the discovery deadline in the West Virginia action.
- Defendants (in the West Virginia case) opposed, arguing the subpoenas relate to outstanding West Virginia discovery disputes and that the issuing court in West Virginia should decide disputes over the subpoenas; defendants also contended compliance could be within 100 miles of West Virginia.
- The Texas court considered whether it was the proper forum as the court "where compliance is required" under Rule 45 and whether transfer to the issuing court under Rule 45(f) was appropriate.
- The Texas court concluded the subpoenas on their face directed a physical place of compliance in Dallas (so the Dallas court was the district where compliance was required) but nonetheless found exceptional circumstances and transferred the motion to the Southern District of West Virginia under Rule 45(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for Rule 45(d) motion (which court is "where compliance is required") | Subpoenas name Dallas law office as place of production; therefore Dallas is proper forum | Issuing court (S.D. W. Va.) should decide because subpoenas issued there and disputes are linked to pending West Virginia discovery | Dallas is the district where compliance is required based on the subpoena's stated physical place, so Texas filing was proper |
| Validity of email-only compliance/place and effect on forum | An email address alone doesn't create a valid physical place; subpoenas here list Dallas address so meet Rule 45 | Defendants pointed to Notices of Intent preferring electronic delivery to WV counsel | Email alone does not equal a physical place of compliance; the Dallas address on the subpoena controls on its face |
| Timeliness and undue burden of subpoenas after discovery cutoff | Subpoenas were untimely (served after West Virginia discovery closed) and seek to circumvent party discovery limits; impose burden on nonparties | Subpoenas are timely and linked to pending motions to compel in the West Virginia case; subpoenas relate to needed documents | Court did not decide merits of timeliness/undue burden; it recognized the dispute but transferred the motion so the issuing court can resolve these linked discovery issues |
| Transfer under Rule 45(f) | Transfer is inappropriate because Kofile's principal place and counsel are in Dallas, and local resolution protects nonparties | Transfer appropriate because underlying discovery disputes are pending and fully briefed in the issuing court; avoiding disruption to issuing court's management warrants transfer | Court found exceptional circumstances and transferred the Motion to Quash to the Southern District of West Virginia under Rule 45(f) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2004) (placing burden on movant to show subpoena imposes unreasonable and oppressive compliance)
- Williams v. City of Dallas, 178 F.R.D. 103 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (standards for undue burden in subpoena challenges)
- Andra Group, LP v. JDA Software Group, Inc., 312 F.R.D. 444 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (objecting nonparty must show how discovery is overbroad or burdensome)
- Am. Fed'n of Musicians of the U.S. & Canada v. SKODAM Films, LLC, 313 F.R.D. 39 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (example of a subpoena being facially overbroad when requests lack particularity and unlimited time periods)