Secura Insurance, A Mutual Company v. Thompson, 5:23-cv-00066

This case involves a discovery dispute in the context of litigation between Secura Insurance (Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant) and John Thompson (Defendant/Counter-Claimant).
Plaintiff served notice of its intent to subpoena bank records from United Southern Bank related to both Thompson and a non-party, Travis Walters, citing relevance to the claimed repair receipts and expenses in the underlying suit.
Defendant timely objected to the subpoena, arguing irrelevance at that stage, but the court overruled the objection and held the information was relevant and potentially discoverable.
After the subpoena was served and disclosures made, Thompson sought to quash the subpoena, asserting procedural violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(4) (notification requirements for subpoenas).
The court construed Thompson's motion (filed after disclosure) as a motion to quash and reviewed whether the notice and service requirements of Rule 45 were satisfied and if any prejudice resulted to Thompson.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Rule 45(a)(4) Notice	Notified opposing party prior to serving bank; complied with Rule 45	Notice should be given to bank account owner (Walters), not just parties to suit	Plaintiff complied with Rule 45 by notifying Thompson before serving
Relevance of Subpoenaed Bank Records	Bank records are relevant to repair receipts/expenses	Records not relevant to proceedings	Court previously determined records are properly discoverable
Prejudice from Alleged Rule 45 Violation	No prejudice to Defendant; had opportunity to object	Plaintiff's failure to notify entitled Defendant to relief	No prejudice shown, as Defendant objected and received notice
Timeliness of Motion to Quash	Objection period expired; subpoena already complied with	Defendant may still move to quash	Any further motion untimely and objections are waived

Hendricks v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, 275 F.R.D. 251 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (purpose of Rule 45 notice is to allow opportunity to object)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (duty of care in submitting accurate legal authority)