ILNews

IBA: An Alternative to Rule 28(E) For Service of Non-Party Discovery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Germaine Winnick Willett and Pamela J. Heath, Ice Miller LLP
 

heath-pamela-mug Heath
willett-germaine-mug Willett

Did you know that Indiana law provides an easier way to pursue non-party discovery for use in out-of-state litigation? In 2007, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act (UIDDA) with the goal of promoting more efficient and less expensive procedures for seeking production of documents and depositions “as the amount of litigation involving individuals and documents located outside of the trial state has increased.” Indiana’s legislature adopted UIDDA in 2010. See Indiana Code § 34-44.5-1-1, et seq. Currently, approximately 30 states have adopted the Act, including Indiana’s neighbors, Michigan and Kentucky.

According to the legislative summary for Indiana Code § 34-44.5-1-1, et seq., the statute permits a litigant to present to a clerk of the court located in the county where discoverable materials are sought with a subpoena properly issued from the court in which the lawsuit pends (the “foreign jurisdiction”). Once the clerk receives a foreign subpoena, the clerk shall issue a subpoena for service upon the person or entity listed in the foreign subpoena, as long as the terms of the issued subpoena duplicate those in the foreign subpoena, and as long as the issued subpoena contains the contact information of all counsel of record and any unrepresented persons.

UIDDA does not supersede the procedure set forth in Indiana Trial Rule 28(E). If they choose, litigants may still obtain a court order (usually termed a commission or letters rogatory) from the foreign jurisdiction, and then file that order with a motion to assist out-of-state litigant in the Indiana jurisdiction where the non-party resides, in order to ask the court to direct the clerk to serve the subpoena on the non-party. However, as lawyers who have utilized this procedure know, the process set forth in Rule 28(E) can be cumbersome and time-consuming.

How does UIDDA differ from the procedure set forth in Indiana Trial Rule 28? Certainly, it eliminates the need to obtain a commission or letters rogatory from the foreign jurisdiction to be presented to an Indiana court. Under UIDDA, litigants may present a properly issued subpoena from the foreign jurisdiction directly to the clerk of the Indiana court sitting in the county where the person from whom testimony and/or documents are sought resides, and, per the statute, the clerk shall issue it for service without any involvement from the judge. Also, given the elimination of the requirement to file the commission with a motion to assist out-of-state litigant, the litigant need not retain an Indiana attorney, at least not at the outset.

It sounds simple, but here’s the rub: you may find that the clerk of the court lacks familiarity with UIDDA. As such, litigants who wish to proceed under UIDDA should contact the clerk of the court to discuss invocation of the statute. The statute does not refer to the opening of a case file, however, the clerk may nevertheless request that a miscellaneous action be filed in order to track the activity and maintain records. Though UIDDA was designed to avoid jumping through such hoops, the clerk may even instruct the litigant to file a motion to assist out-of-state litigant as the vehicle to open the action and require payment of a filing fee. At this point, retention of an attorney admitted to practice in Indiana will be necessary.

Does UIDDA permit a litigant to retain an Indiana attorney to serve the subpoena him or herself, as attorneys typically do in Indiana civil actions, so as to avoid involvement of the clerk all together? After all, Trial Rule 45 deems attorneys to be officers of the court and thereby empowers them to serve subpoenas. While this has not been tested in the courts, UIDDA likely does not go so far. First, UIDDA plainly states that “a party must submit the foreign subpoena to the clerk of the court.” The statute makes no mention of an attorney’s involvement. Second, Rule 45 limits the circumstances in which an attorney may serve subpoenas to those instances in which the attorney has appeared for the serving party. Thus, unless the Indiana attorney has appeared for the party in the foreign jurisdiction (certainly possible, but unlikely), Rule 45 does not authorize the attorney to serve a subpoena without the clerk’s involvement in any event.

As mentioned above, more than half of the states have adopted UIDDA. Indiana litigants who seek testimony or production of documents from a non-party located in another state should determine whether that state has adopted UIDDA or if it instead adheres to the more traditional commission/letters rogatory method. Additionally, good reason may exist to utilize Rule 28’s procedure instead of pursuing the discovery pursuant to UIDDA. For example, if the litigant anticipates that the target of a subpoena will resist the subpoena, having filed a motion to assist out-of-state litigant in a miscellaneous action will mean that a forum already exists to quickly resolve the discovery dispute, if and when it occurs.

UIDDA is a welcome addition to Indiana’s procedural law, because it simplifies the non-party discovery process. As the clerks in Indiana’s county courts gain familiarity with the statute, the statute’s use will undoubtedly save out-of-state litigants time and money as well as conserve judicial resources. The next time you receive a call from an out-of-state litigant seeking your help with securing a deposition or records from a non-party located in Indiana, consider whether Indiana Code § 34-44.5-1-1, et seq. is a better option for your client.•

Germaine Winnick Willett practices in the area of employment and general civil litigation at Ice Miller LLP. Pamela “PJ” Heath is a paralegal in Ice Miller LLP’s labor section.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT