United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MARGARET CRUZ, et al.
GREEN TREE MORTGAGE SERVICING, LLC, et al.
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
WITH SUBPOENA [DOC. #105]
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is a motion by defendants Green Tree
Mortgage Servicing, LLC and Federal National Mortgage
Association (herein collectively referred to as
“defendants”) pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to compel compliance with a
non-party subpoena served upon Miller, Broich &
Associates. [Doc. #105]. No opposition has been filed to this
motion. For the reasons articulated below, the Court
GRANTS defendants' Motion to Compel,
absent objection, and orders non-party Miller, Broich &
Associates to comply with defendants' subpoena.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a party may serve a
subpoena commanding a nonparty to attend and testify or to
produce designated documents.” Sberbank of Russia v.
Traisman, No. 3:14CV216(WWE), 2016 WL 4479533, at *1 (D.
Conn. Aug. 23, 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted);
see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). “A person
commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney
designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting
... any or all of the materials[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P.
45(d)(2)(B). Any written objection to a subpoena for
production or inspection “must be served before the
earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after
the subpoena is served.” Id. “The
failure to serve written objections to a subpoena within the
time specified by Rule 45[ ] typically constitutes a waiver
of such objections.” Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick
Corp., 169 F.R.D. 44, 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); see also 9 James
Wm. Moore et al; Moore's Federal Practice
§45.41[c] (3d ed. 2016) (“If no timely written
objection is served, the person subject to the subpoena
generally waives any objection to production or inspection as
commanded by the subpoena.”).
a party fails to obey a subpoena or an order to provide
discovery, the Court may hold that party in contempt.”
E. Point Sys., Inc. v. Maxim, No. 3:13CV00215(VAB), 2016 WL
1118237, at *25 (D. Conn. Mar. 22, 2016); see also
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(g) (“The court for the district where
compliance is required ... may hold in contempt a person who,
having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
subpoena or an order related to it.”). Further,
“it is well-settled that a court's contempt power
extends to non-parties who have notice of the court's
order and the responsibility to comply with it.”
Trustees of I.B.E.W. Local Union No. 488 Pension Fund v.
Norland Elec., Inc., No. 3:11CV709(CSH), 2016 WL 1060188, at
*3 (D. Conn. Mar. 14, 2016) (quotation marks and citation
omitted) (collecting cases).
December 1, 2016, defendants served Miller, Broich &
Associates with a subpoena seeking “[a]ll documents
concerning or related to any applications, inquiries, or
denials for credit, including a refinance by [plaintiffs] ...
from 2013 to the present, including any communications with
[plaintiffs].” Doc. #105-4 at 2. After receiving no
response to the subpoena, defendants sent a follow-up letter
on January 6, 2017, and then an email on January 25, 2017.
See Doc. #105-1 at 4. On January 26, 2017, defendants filed
the instant motion to compel, and served a copy of the motion
upon Miller, Broich & Associates by certified mail on the
same date. See Doc. #105-1 at 6.
date, no written objection to the subpoena has been made, and
neither Miller, Broich & Associates nor plaintiffs have
filed any opposition to defendants' motion. No motion to
quash has been filed. Further, the subpoena appears facially
valid. The documents sought appear to be relevant to the
instant matter. See Warnke v. CVS Corp., 265 F.R.D. 64, 66
(E.D.N.Y. 2010) (“A subpoena issued to a non-party
pursuant to Rule 45 is subject to Rule 26(b)(1)'s
overriding relevance requirement.” (quotation marks and
citation omitted)). Defendants seek the documents to
investigate plaintiffs' claim that plaintiffs' credit
was affected as a result of the underlying dispute, and that
an application for credit was denied by the non-party. See
Doc. #105-2 at 5. Defendants' request is limited in scope
and in time, and does not appear overbroad on its face. The
Court has no reason to believe that compliance would be
unduly burdensome. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A); see also
Gray v. Town of Easton, No. 3:12CV166(RNC), 2013 WL 2358599,
at *2 (D. Conn. May 29, 2013) (denying nonparties'
motions to quash subpoenas where, inter alia, the documents
sought were relevant and production would not be unduly
burdensome); see also Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 281
F.R.D. 85, 98 (D. Conn. 2012) (“It is incumbent upon
courts to protect non-parties from significant expense when
considering motions to compel.”).
the Court GRANTS defendants' motion to
compel. [Doc. #105]. Defendants shall serve a copy of this
Order by certified mail to non-party Miller, Broich &
Associates on or before February 23,
2017. Miller, Broich & Associates shall respond
to the subject subpoena on or before March 6,
2017. Should the non-party fail to comply with this
Court's Order, it may be subject to sanctions for
not a Recommended Ruling. This is an order regarding
discovery and case management which is reviewable pursuant to
the “clearly erroneous” statutory standard of
review. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); and
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2. As such, it is an order of ...