In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litig.
306 F. Supp. 3d 372
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Fourteen plaintiffs in a complex multidistrict antitrust class action (MDL) pending in the Middle District of Florida issued a Rule 45 subpoena to a nonparty (an optometrist in Maryland) seeking social-media and other communications.
- Respondent refused to comply; plaintiffs moved to enforce the subpoena in the issuing (MDL) court, which declined to rule without the nonparty’s consent because compliance was required in another district. Respondent refused consent.
- Plaintiffs then filed in this Court a motion to transfer the subpoena-enforcement motion to the MDL court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f), or alternatively to enforce the subpoena here.
- This Court examined Rule 45(f) and the advisory notes governing transfer when the person subject to a subpoena does not consent, focusing on whether "exceptional circumstances" justified transfer.
- The Court found the MDL’s complexity, consolidated discovery management, prior discovery rulings, pending class-certification and discovery schedules, and the issuing court’s familiarity with the confidentiality order created exceptional circumstances favoring transfer.
- The Court concluded transfer would not unduly burden the nonparty (little additional briefing or travel likely; electronic production and telephonic appearances feasible) and therefore granted the motion to transfer the enforcement motion to the Middle District of Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the compliance-district court should transfer a subpoena-enforcement motion to the issuing (MDL) court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) absent consent | Transfer is warranted because the underlying action is a complex MDL; transfer avoids disruption, inconsistent rulings, and serves judicial economy | Opposes transfer; insists on local resolution because respondent is a Maryland nonparty with no Florida ties and does not consent | Court granted transfer: MDL status and centralized discovery management constitute "exceptional circumstances" under Rule 45(f) |
| Whether transfer would unduly burden the nonparty | Minimal burden: briefs already filed; production can be electronic; telephonic appearances available; plaintiffs offered forensic collection at plaintiffs' expense | Transfer imposes burden due to distance and nonparty status; prefers local adjudication | Court held transfer would not impose undue burden; any administrative burden is minimal and mitigable |
| Whether the issuing court is best situated to resolve relevance and confidentiality disputes | Issuing court is intimately familiar with the MDL’s scope, prior discovery rulings, and confidentiality order; better positioned to judge relevance and protective measures | Respondent argues relevance and privacy concerns weigh against transfer and rely on local protection of rights | Court held issuing court is better positioned to evaluate relevance and the confidentiality regime; promotes uniformity and efficiency |
| Effect of prior briefing and MDL proceedings on transfer analysis | Prior full briefing and telephonic hearings in the MDL court show it is prepared to decide; transfer will avoid duplicative litigation | Respondent emphasizes prior rejection and need for local adjudication | Court found prior engagement by issuing court and existing orders favor transfer and minimize additional work for parties |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 444 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2006) (MDL transferee judge can compel extra-district nonparty production and enforce subpoenas)
- In re UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. of Puerto Rico Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 3d 286 (D.D.C. 2015) (issuing court familiarity with underlying litigation supports transfer under Rule 45(f))
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Valle Del Sol, Inc., 307 F.R.D. 30 (D.D.C. 2014) (balance nonparty local interests against ensuring efficient progress of underlying litigation)
- Wultz v. Bank of China, Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 38 (D.D.C. 2014) (transfer appropriate to avoid inconsistent rulings and promote judicial economy)
- In re Subpoenas Served on Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) (section 1407 and MDL policy support centralized resolution of discovery, including subpoenas)