ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Rule requires advance service of non-party document requests

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedBarMaley-sigUnknown to some practitioners, since 1991 the current version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 requires advance notice to opposing parties of document subpoenas issued to non-parties. This language is somewhat buried in section (b)(1) as follows:

“(b) Service. (1) By Whom; Tendering Fees; Serving a Copy of Certain Subpoenas. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena. Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person and, if the subpoena requires that person’s attendance, tendering the fees for 1 day’s attendance and the mileage allowed by law. Fees and mileage need not be tendered when the subpoena issues on behalf of the United States or any of its officers or agencies. 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, a notice must be served on each party.” (emphasis added).

This language has only been cited in 27 reported decisions, none from an appellate court. An example of a relatively recent District decision addressing this issue is EEOC v. Rexnord Industries, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91006 (E.D. Wis. 2012), in which the court wrote:

“The EEOC argues the subpoenas should be quashed because Rexnord failed to provide adequate notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). Rule 45(b)(1) requires that ‘[i]f 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, a notice must be served on each party.’ While the Rule does not state how much notice is required, the 1991 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 45 indicates that the purpose of the notice requirement is to provide opposing parties an opportunity to object to the subpoena. The parties do not cite, and this Court has not found, any Seventh Circuit authority addressing the proper amount of notice to be given under Rule 45(b)(1). However, given the purpose of the Rule is to provide the opposing party an opportunity to object to the subpoena, the purpose of the Rule in this case has been served. The subpoenas were provided to the EEOC two weeks prior to the date of compliance, during which time the EEOC voiced its objections to the subpoenas, received an extension of time to file from Rexnord, and filed a motion to quash. Because the EEOC had an opportunity to object before compliance with the subpoenas, the motion will not be denied on this ground.”

Effective Dec. 1, a number of changes will occur to Rule 45, and those will be addressed in the next column. One change in this context, however, is that this pre-service notice to parties is given prominence and its own titled subsection. Specifically, Rule 45(a)(4) will read:

“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.”

Notably, unlike Indiana’s Trial Rule 34(C)(1) which requires 15 days advance service, the amended federal rule still does not provide a specific time period of advance notice. Presumably, absent local rule, case management guidance or agreement among parties, “reasonableness” will be the guide.

Under the current version of Rule 45, it is common for case management plans in the Southern District of Indiana to address this issue. This author has seen plans with requirements of three-, 10- or 14-days advance notice. The Local Rules Advisory Committee for the Southern District addressed this issue in its October meeting and recommended to the court that a seven-day advance notice period be set forth in Local Rule 45-1, with exceptions for agreement of counsel or emergencies. The consensus among the committee (which includes government attorneys, private practitioners, plaintiff and defense attorneys, corporate counsel, and judicial officers) was that seven days was sufficient time for an opposing party to determine whether to raise objections, try to resolve the issue, and if necessary seek court relief. It remains to be seen what the court does with the recommendation.

In the meantime, practitioners should be aware that with the amended Rule 45 and its prominent featuring of this issue, advance service will be expected and more likely to be enforced.

Annual Federal Civil Practice Update seminar – This annual 3-hour CLE seminar for the Southern District of Indiana will be Thursday, Dec. 19 from 1:30 to 4:45 p.m. in Indianapolis, and will feature Chief Judge Richard Young, Magistrate Judge Roger Cosbey, Magistrate Judge Denise LaRue, Magistrate Judge William Hussmann, Don Wall from the 7th Circuit, and Clerk Laura Briggs. Registration is open at www.theindianalawyer.com.•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT