Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 MICHAEL R. MARCUS, et al., Case No. 22-cv-09058-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO QUASH TRIAL 9 v. SUBPOENAS TO THOMAS SCHROPPE AND MARTIN KRAFT CORPORATION, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 765, 772 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court are two motions to quash trial subpoenas issued by Plaintiffs to 14 former defense employees Thomas Schroppe (Foster Wheeler) and Martin Kraft (Air & Liquid 15 Systems Corporation). See Dkt. Nos. 765, 772. The Court GRANTS the motions. 16 The witnesses Plaintiffs seek to subpoena live in South Carolina and New York. In other 17 words, they reside far outside the geographical limitation on subpoenas imposed by Federal Rule 18 of Civil Procedure 45, which states that “a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, 19 hearing, or deposition only as follows: (A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is 20 employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or (B) within the state where the person 21 resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person [] is a party or a 22 party’s officer . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c). The Northern District of California is plainly neither 23 within 100 miles of or within the same state where Messrs. Schroppe or Kraft “reside[], [are] 24 employed, or regularly transact[] business in person.” Id. While Plaintiffs argue that Messrs. 25 Schroppe and Kraft can nevertheless be compelled to testify in this district because they are party 26 witnesses (which the Court need not decide at this time), the cases on which they rely for this 27 proposition predate the 2013 amendments to Rule 45. See Dkt. Nos. 801, 802. According to Rule ] to the interpretation in the Jn re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation’ line of cases on which 2 Plaintiffs rely, Rule 45 “does not authorize a subpoena for trial to require a party or party officer to 3 travel more than 100 miles unless the party or party officer resides, is employed, or regularly 4 transacts business in person in the state.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Advisory Committee Notes. 5 Since Plaintiffs seek to subpoena out-of-state witnesses who reside far outside the 100- 6 mile reach of Rule 45 to testify at trial here, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to quash 7 the subpoenas to Thomas Schroppe and Martin Kraft, Dkt. Nos. 765 and 772. Each subpoena is 8 quashed. 10 Dated: September 6, 2024 11 7 4 pyreod 4 Ad, _b. . HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 12 United States District Judge 13

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 438 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. La. 2006).