297 F.R.D. 1
D.D.C.2013Background
- Mark Gordon (plaintiff) sues under ERISA in Middle District of Florida challenging denial of disability benefits; underlying case remains pending.
- Gordon served a third-party subpoena on Dr. Mark Borigini (medical reviewer) on Sept. 19, 2012; the subpoena issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the Maryland-issued subpoena in the District of Columbia instead of the issuing court; earlier misfilings in Florida led to dismissal there and direction to seek relief in Maryland.
- Borigini opposed enforcement in D.C.; he had corresponded from a Washington, D.C. address though served at a Maryland address.
- The D.C. court denied Gordon’s motion to enforce/compel because Rule 45 makes subpoenas the process of the issuing court (Maryland), and refused to award fees to Borigini despite the Rule 37(a)(5) presumption because Gordon’s mistake was not strategic and he is a disabled litigant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.C. court may enforce a subpoena issued by the District of Maryland | Gordon argued discovery would be taken in D.C. because Borigini communicated from a D.C. address | Borigini argued the subpoena must be enforced/quashed by the issuing court (Maryland) | Denied: D.C. court lacks authority; subpoena enforcement belongs to issuing court (Maryland) |
| Whether plaintiff’s misfiled motion was "substantially justified" under Rule 37(a)(5) | Gordon’s error was inadvertent, based on D.C. contacts | Opposed fee relief because motion was filed in wrong court | Motion not substantially justified, but fees denied as unjust given plaintiff’s disability and lack of strategic misconduct |
| Whether to award reasonable expenses/attorney’s fees to defendant under Rule 37(a)(5) | N/A (seeking to avoid fee award) | Sought mandatory award because motion to compel was denied | Court declined to award expenses, invoking discretion and equitable considerations |
| Whether court should address scope of subpoena vis-à-vis limited discovery order in Florida | Gordon sought documents beyond one interrogatory allowed by magistrate in Florida | Borigini could challenge scope | Court declined to reach validity of subpoena scope because it dismissed for lack of enforcement authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. S.E.C., 482 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (subpoenas are process of the issuing court)
- United States v. Star Scientific, Inc., 205 F. Supp. 2d 482 (D. Md. 2002) (enforcement authority resides with issuing court)
- In re Sealed Case, 141 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Rule 45 does not confer enforcement power on non-issuing courts)