Wultz v. Bank of China, Ltd.
304 F.R.D. 38
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs Sheryl Wultz, Yekutiel Wultz, Amanda Wultz, and A.L.W. sue Bank of China in this District; Israel moves to quash a nonparty subpoena for Uzi Shaya’s deposition tied to the Wultz litigation.
- The subpoena identifies Washington, D.C. as the deposition location but relates to discovery in New York actions coordinated with Wultz via Judge Scheindlin in SDNY.
- Intervenors seek to intervene and, in the alternative, transfer the motion to quash to SDNY to avoid inconsistent rulings and coordinate with related cases.
- This Court stayed the deposition pending resolution of Israel’s motion to quash and consolidated the intervention quest with the earlier-filed related matters.
- Rule 45 amendments and Rule 7(m) conference obligations are at issue, including whether to transfer the motion to quash to the New York court.
- The court concludes that Rule 45 amendments authorize transfer under exceptional circumstances and transfers the quash motion to SDNY, while denying transfer of the deposition location.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court transfer the Rule 45 motion to quash to SDNY? | Intervenors argue transfer needed for efficiency and consistency. | Israel contends transfer retroactivity harms personal jurisdiction and efficiency. | Transfer to SDNY granted for decision on the motion to quash. |
| Does retroactive Rule 45 apply to this pending subpoena? | Amended Rule 45 should govern to avoid inconsistent rulings. | Israel emphasizes potential personal-jurisdiction issues and wasteful relitigation. | Amended Rule 45 applies; transfer authorized. |
| Is there exceptional circumstance to transfer under Rule 45(f)? | Judicial economy and consistency across related NY actions justify transfer. | No exceptional circumstance or risk of prejudice beyond cost of litigation. | Yes, exceptional circumstances exist mandating transfer. |
| Should the location of Mr. Shaya’s deposition be moved if the motion is transferred? | Location should move with the motion to NY to reflect underlying litigation. | Physical deposition location remains DC unless Shaya consents to New York. | Deposition location remains DC unless consent is established; transfer does not relocate deposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sealed Case, 141 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (permits transfer of subpoena-related motions under Rule 45 where appropriate)
- Moore v. Agency for Intl. Dev., 994 F.2d 874 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (apply law in effect at decision time unless manifest injustice)
- Gersman v. Grp. Health Ass’n, 975 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (when rights don't change, apply the law then in effect)
- Randall v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 110 F.R.D. 342 (D.D.C. 1986) (cost of litigation alone does not constitute unfair prejudice)