Honeywell International Inc. v. Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl, Misc. No. 2021-0151

Honeywell served a Rule 45 subpoena on non-party The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl seeking documents about Nicholl clients paid by the NARCO Asbestos Trust based on so-called "form" affidavits.
The subpoenas relate to Honeywell's adversary proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the 2021 NARCO Litigation), where Honeywell challenges Trust payments based on boilerplate affidavits.
Honeywell alleges Nicholl’s firm has been a major beneficiary of those payments (tens of millions of dollars) and previously litigated related issues against the Trust in 2015.
Honeywell also served subpoenas on other law firms; some recipients moved to quash and at least one other court has transferred a parallel subpoena dispute to the bankruptcy court.
Honeywell moved in this Court to transfer its motion to compel (or in the alternative to compel production); Nicholl opposed transfer and did not consent.
The district court granted Honeywell’s request to transfer the subpoena dispute to the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and did not address the merits of the motion to compel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should transfer Honeywell's motion to compel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f)	Transfer is warranted because the issuing bankruptcy court (Judge Agresti) is familiar with the underlying litigation, transfer avoids inconsistent rulings, and the schedule is time-sensitive	Nicholl refuses consent; argues nonparty interest in local resolution and claims transfer would be burdensome	Court found "exceptional circumstances," granted transfer to the Bankruptcy Court
Whether transfer would unduly burden the nonparty (Nicholl)	Transfer poses minimal additional burden; telephonic participation can limit travel costs	Transfer would inconvenience Nicholl and impose burden/costs	Court concluded Nicholl would not suffer undue burden; briefing complete; telephonic options available
Whether denying transfer would disrupt the underlying bankruptcy proceedings or risk inconsistent rulings	Non-transfer would risk disrupting expedited schedule and create conflicting discovery rulings across districts	Local adjudication preferred to protect nonparty's local interests	Court held transfer would better protect the bankruptcy court’s case management and avoid inconsistent outcomes

In re NARCO, 542 B.R. 350 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2015) (prior bankruptcy decision addressing Trust's handling of form affidavits)
In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litig., 306 F. Supp. 3d 372 (D.D.C. 2017) (factors for finding "exceptional circumstances" under Rule 45(f))
In re Braden, 344 F. Supp. 3d 83 (D.D.C. 2018) (issuing court's familiarity supports transfer to avoid disruption)
In re UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. of Puerto Rico Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 3d 286 (D.D.C. 2015) (issuing court may be better positioned to rule)
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Valle Del Sol, Inc., 307 F.R.D. 30 (D.D.C. 2014) (balancing nonparty's local interest against efficiency of issuing court)
Duck v. SEC, 317 F.R.D. 321 (D.D.C. 2016) (transfer appropriate to avoid interfering with time-sensitive discovery)
Wultz v. Bank of China, Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 38 (D.D.C. 2014) (transfer favored to avoid inconsistent rulings)