Federal Bar Update: Rule 45 amendments on subpoenas took effect Dec. 1

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedBarMaley-sigAmendments took effect Dec. 1 to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, amendments took effect to several of the Southern District of Indiana’s Local Rules.

Rule 45 Significantly Revised – The most significant change for Indiana federal practitioners comes from amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. The new version is found at under the Rules & Policies link. Practitioners are cautioned that many websites will be slow to have the revised version (although – as usual – has it right), and updated hard copy rule pamphlets typically do not issue until late winter.

There are four areas of change for subpoena practice under Rule 45: (a) pre-service notice requirements for third-party subpoenas are more prominent in the amended rule; (b) the amendment clarifies that the 100-mile rule indeed applies; (c) issuance of subpoenas outside of the district where the action is pending will now bear only the caption of the district where the action is pending (and thus be “issued” from that court); and (d) for subpoenas served outside the district where the action pends, the court where the recipient is based can transfer a discovery motion regarding the subpoena to the issuing court upon consent of the recipient or in exceptional circumstances.

Pre-service notice – The amended Rule 45 has new subsection 45(a)(2)(4), which provides, “Notice to Other Parties Before Service. If the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party.”

This requirement previously existed under the prior version of the rule, but it was not separated in its own subsection with its own heading. The Rules Committee was concerned that prior to third-party document requests being served, the opposing party was not receiving advance notice so as to be able to object or seek court relief.

Southern District related change – Effective Dec. 1, the Southern District of Indiana adopted new Local Rule 45-1 to give guidance on how much advance notice is required: “Rule 45-1 – Service of Subpoena on Non-Parties – Notice Requirement If a subpoena to produce or permit is to be served upon a nonparty, a copy of the proposed subpoena must be served on all other parties at least 7 days prior to service of the subpoena on the nonparty, unless the parties agree to a different time frame or the case management plan provides otherwise. Provided, however, that if such subpoena relates to a matter set for hearing within such 7 day period or arises out of a bona fide emergency, such subpoena may be served upon a nonparty 1 day after a notice and copy of the subpoena is served on each party.”

100-Mile rule – New Federal Rule 45(c) collects and simplifies provisions as to where compliance can be required. Compliance may be required within 100 miles of where the recipient resides, is employed or regularly conducts business in person. For parties and party officers, Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(i) provides that compliance may be required anywhere in the state where the person resides, is employed or regularly conducts business in person. Nonparty witnesses can be required to travel more than 100 miles within the state where they reside, are employed or regularly transact business in person only if they would not, as a result, incur “substantial expense.” When travel over 100 miles would impose substantial expense, the party that served the subpoena may pay that expense and the court can condition enforcement of the subpoena on such payment.

Overriding the Vioxx decision, 438 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. La. 2006), Rule 45(c)(1)(A) does not authorize a subpoena for trial to require a party or party officer to travel more than 100 miles unless the party or party officer resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person in the state.

Issuing court – Thankfully, the amended Rule 45(a)(2) provides that a “subpoena must issue from the court where the action is pending.” This removes the silly fiction of out-of-district subpoenas being “issued” by another court, which led – upon lawyer errors in this regard – to needless form-over-substance battles. As before, an attorney authorized to practice in the issuing court may issue and sign the subpoena.

Transfer – Finally, for motions regarding subpoenas requiring compliance outside the issuing district, the motion (e.g., a motion to quash or to compel) may be transferred to the issuing court if (a) the recipient consents; or (b) if the court finds “exceptional circumstances.” Notably, the Federal Magistrate Judges Association advocated for a lower standard for transfer, which makes sense given that magistrate judges usually address these discovery motions. The Federal Magistrate Judges Association preferred that it be easier to transfer these motions to the issuing court, which has knowledge of the action.

The comments to the amendments, however, indicate concerns about the recipient, stating “The prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions. In some circumstances, however, transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion or the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts. Transfer is appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion. Judges in compliance districts may find it helpful to consult with the judge in the issuing court presiding over the underlying case while addressing subpoena-related motions.”

Practice tip – Counsel are advised to carefully review, dissect and re-review new Rule 45 in its entirety, and to then consult it each time Rule 45 is utilized. It is a long, complex and cumbersome rule, but one that is invoked repeatedly.•


John Maley – – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters and appeals. He chairs the Local Rules Advisory Committee for the S.D. of Indiana and is a member of the Local Rules Advisory Committee for the N.D. of Indiana. The opinions expressed are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues