Lipman v. Antoon
284 F. Supp. 3d 8
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- Antoon served Lipman with a nonparty subpoena (July 20, 2017) seeking documents and testimony related to Lipman's FCC comments in WC Docket No. 12-375.
- Lipman moved to quash the subpoena on grounds of irrelevance and privilege/work product protection.
- Antoon moved to transfer Lipman's motion to quash to the Western District of Arkansas under Rule 45(f).
- Lipman is a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and serves as Chairman of the firm's Advisory Board; he provided FCC comments on ICS issues as a representative for clients.
- The underlying action is in the Western District of Arkansas against Securus related to inmate calling services, with discovery ongoing and four related ICS cases before Judge Brooks.
- The court granted transfer of the motion to quash to the Western District of Arkansas, finding exceptional circumstances and weighing burdens and judicial economy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exceptional circumstances justify transferring the motion to quash | Antoon argues transfer is warranted to avoid burden and leverage issuing court. | Lipman argues the motion should be adjudicated locally in DC due to burden and privilege issues. | Transfer granted due to exceptional circumstances. |
| Whether transfer will unduly burden Lipman as a nonparty | Burden on Lipman is negligible; same firm represents Securus and teleconference allowed. | Lipman claims substantial burden since DC-based and separate counsel. | Burden deemed not unduly heavy; transfer approved. |
| Whether transfer avoids inconsistent rulings and preserves case management | Transfer prevents conflicts with underlying and related cases before Judge Brooks. | Argues local resolution is more appropriate; no explicit inconsistency shown. | Transfer warranted to avoid potential inconsistent results. |
| Whether relevance, scope, and privilege arguments affect transfer decision | Lipman's central argument is relevance and potential irrelevance of documents. | Lipman asserts privilege/work product as controlling; relevance is intertwined with merits. | Relevance and privilege considerations favor transfer for a coherent ruling by the issuing court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Valle Del Sol, Inc., 307 F.R.D. 30 (D.D.C. 2014) (balance of factors; avoid burden on nonparties in subpoena disputes)
- Wultz v. Bank of China, Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 38 (D.D.C. 2014) (considerations of judicial economy and risk of inconsistent results)
- Duck v. SEC, 317 F.R.D. 321 (D.D.C. 2016) (transfer justified to avoid disruption of time-sensitive discovery)
- Flynn v. FCA US LLC, 216 F. Supp. 3d 44 (D.D.C. 2016) (transfer appropriate where discovery schedule and case management at issue)
- Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Co. v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 309 F.R.D. 41 (D.D.C. 2015) (relevance questions require nuanced analysis and familiarity with underlying dispute)