Halderman v. Herring Networks, Inc., 2:24-mc-51057

Dr. J. Alex Halderman, an election security expert and Michigan resident, was subpoenaed for a deposition by defendants in an underlying defamation lawsuit in D.C.
Halderman was not retained as an expert or listed as a witness in the defamation case; he moved to quash the subpoena.
The court previously granted Halderman’s motion to quash, finding the subpoena improperly sought compelled testimony from an unretained, unwilling expert.
Defendants later obtained draft versions of Halderman’s reports and other related materials, arguing they constituted new evidence.
Defendants filed a motion for an indicative ruling, seeking to have the court reconsider its order to quash the subpoena in light of this “new evidence.”
The appeal of the initial order is still pending, and the court’s jurisdiction is accordingly limited.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether new evidence justifies reconsideration of the order quashing the subpoena under Rule 59(e).	No new evidence of consequence; edits in report do not change prior analysis.	Drafts and related meetings show possible alteration of conclusions, warranting deposition.	No; alleged new evidence not material enough to justify reconsideration.
Whether Dr. Halderman’s testimony is factual or expert opinion and if compelling it is proper under Rule 45.	Testimony sought is expert opinion arising from post-incident investigation.	Halderman possesses unique factual knowledge about Antrim County voting issues.	Sought testimony is expert, not factual; compelling it not warranted under Rule 45.
Whether the defendants showed substantial need for Halderman’s testimony that cannot be otherwise met.	Defendants failed to show testimony is uniquely necessary or unavailable elsewhere.	Only Halderman had forensic access, so his knowledge is irreplaceable for their defense.	Defendants did not establish substantial need; other experts could analyze the evidence.
If seeking relief under Rule 62.1 requires a separate predicate motion while appeal is pending.	Procedurally, a distinct motion is required for relief consideration.	Rule 62.1 does not mandate separate motions if substantive arguments are included.	Separate motion not required if all arguments for relief are contained; court considers motion as proper.

Kaufman v. Edelstein, 539 F.2d 811 (2d Cir. 1976) (sets out factors for determining whether to compel expert testimony from unretained/unwilling experts)
Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392 (6th Cir. 1993) (notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction to appellate court)
Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard for reconsideration under Rule 59(e))
Klabunde v. Stanley, 384 Mich. 276 (Mich. 1970) (scope of factual and opinion testimony distinction under Michigan law)