Patriot National Insurance Group v. Oriska Insurance
973 F. Supp. 2d 173
| N.D.N.Y. | 2013Background
- Patriot National Insurance Group, Patriot Underwriters, Inc., and Guarantee Insurance Co. sue Oriska to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by this court in Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Brand Mgmt. Serv. Inc., SD Fla No. 12-CV-61670.
- Plaintiffs move to compel production; Oriska and defendants in the underlying action oppose; Oriska also moves for a protective order.
- Court held a telephone conference on Sept. 16, 2013 to discuss transferring the motion to the forum court, SD Florida.
- Parties argued transfer favored by forum familiarity with the underlying action; Oriska and defendants argued against transfer.
- Court discussed split authority on transferring subpoena-related motions and considered Rule 1 and efficiency goals in Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
- Court transfers the motion and cross-motion to SD Florida for determination, and suggests procedures to minimize non-party Oriska’s costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to enforce the subpoena should be transferred | Patriot favored transfer due to Florida forum familiarity | Oriska and defendants opposed transfer | Transfer to SD Florida appropriate |
| Whether the Florida forum is better positioned to decide relevance of documents | Florida court has greater familiarity with underlying case and issues | Transfer would be improper or unnecessary | Florida court better positioned to assess relevance |
| Whether personal jurisdiction concerns over Oriska affect transfer | Lack of jurisdiction is not fatal; order could be enforced if necessary | Florida court cannot compel non-party lacking personal jurisdiction | Jurisdiction concerns do not preclude transfer; order could be enforced via forum court |
| Whether Rule 1 principles support transfer for a just and speedy determination | Transfer aligns with Rule 1’s goal of just, speedy, inexpensive determination | Transfer should be avoided unless clearly warranted | Rule 1 supports transfer to the forum with more knowledge of the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Petersen v. Douglas Cnty. Bank & Trust Co., 940 F.2d 1389 (10th Cir. 1991) (transfers of subpoena-related motions guided by forum familiarity)
- In re Digital Equip. Corp., 949 F.2d 228 (8th Cir. 1991) (forum transfer discretion acknowledged)
- In re Sealed Case, 141 F.3d 337 (D.C.Cir. 1998) (court may transfer subpoena issues to proper forum)