Similarly, the First Circuit has held that: “t is also noteworthy that the respondents are strangers to the. However, courts have routinely held that “it is a generally accepted rule that standards for non-party discovery require a stronger showing of relevance than for party discovery.” See, e.g., Pinehaven Plantation Prop., LLC v. The standard for relevance in Rule 26 applies to a subpoena to a non-party. However, the non-party has the right to object on relevance grounds to avoid production. It may seem awkward to object to a subpoena on relevance grounds in a case in which the recipient is not a party. However, Rule 45(f) permits the court where compliance is required to transfer a motion to compel or for protective order to the issuing court “if the person subject to the subpoena consents” or “if the court finds exceptional circumstances.” The phrase “exceptional circumstances” enjoys a very broad interpretation, including, for example, situations where the issuing court has in-depth knowledge of the issues in the case and has invested substantial time resolving related discovery issues. Similarly, the subpoena recipient may file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena in the court where compliance is required. The serving party must file its motion to compel in the court where compliance is required. Who Resolves Objections? The district court where compliance is required has jurisdiction to resolve objections.Objections not served within the 14-day deadline are waived. Objections are usually due well before the date of production. However, Rule 45(d)(2)(B) requires the recipient to serve written objections before the earlier of the date of compliance or 14 days after service of the subpoena.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |