*1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Foreign Subpoena, requesting this Court to order non-party Transamerica Retirement Solutions, LLC (“TRS”) to comply with a subpoena to produce documents. (Doc. 1). TRS has not responded, and the time to do so has expired. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for disposition.

This collateral proceeding relates to a civil matter currently being litigated in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. See Goodman, et al. v. Columbus Regional Healthcare System Inc., No. 4:21-cv-00015-CDL (M.D. Ga.) (“Underlying Proceeding”). Plaintiffs initiated the Underlying Proceeding in February 2021, alleging that their employer, Defendant Columbus Regional Healthcare System, Inc., breached its fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A) and (B) when managing their Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) defined contribution plan. (Underlying Proceeding, Doc. 1). Plaintiffs assert that Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company held the assets of the subject contribution plan as trustee and its affiliate corporation, TRS, provided recordkeeping and other services. (Id. at 8). They assert that, under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(14), those entities collectively were a “party-in-interest” to the contribution plan, and Defendant had a duty to monitor their services and compensation. (Id.).

In this Court, Plaintiffs have moved to enforce a subpoena to produce documents directed to TRS. (Doc. 1 at 1, Doc. 1-1). They assert that their subpoena was served on TRS in care of its registered agent on July 29, 2022, as evidenced by the return of service attached to their motion. (Doc. 1 at 1; Doc. 1-2). The subpoena commanded TRS to produce documents on August 15, 2022 at the office of Plaintiffs’ counsel, which is located in Atlanta, Georgia. (Doc. 1-1). TRS did not respond. (Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that he has made a good faith effort to communicate with TRS, including making several calls to its headquarters and emailing a purported TRS attorney, with no results. (Id.).

Due to TRS's failure to respond, Plaintiffs now ask this Court to order TRS to comply with the subpoena. As an initial matter, the undersigned notes that, absent a response, Plaintiffs’ Motion is deemed unopposed. See LR 7.1(B), NDGa (“Failure to file a response shall indicate that there is no opposition to the motion.”). But in any case, the Motion is due to be granted on the merits.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs non-party discovery, including the issuance of a subpoena to produce documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. A non-party subpoena may be enforced via contempt procedures. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). “Although a subpoena is in a sense the command of the attorney who completes the form, defiance of a subpoena is an act in defiance of a court order and exposes the defiant non-party to contempt sanctions.” ACS Partners, LLC v. GFI Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-1763-LMM-LTW, 2016 WL 11567571, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 25, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom., 2016 WL 11567565 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 12, 2016).

*2 To begin, Plaintiffs properly sought and received a subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Georgia. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) (“A subpoena must issue from the court where the action is pending.”). Plaintiffs served the subpoena on TRS's registered agent in Lawrenceville, Georgia; they assert that TRS transacts business in this district; and they commanded compliance in Atlanta, Georgia. Thus, Plaintiffs have correctly petitioned this Court to enforce the subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2) (stating that a subpoena may command the production of documents within 100 miles of where a non-party regularly transacts business in person); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i) (stating that “the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production”). Additionally, the subpoena named the court from which it was issued; indicated the title of the action and its civil action number; commanded TRS to produce documents at a specified time and place; and included the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), (d), (e), and (g). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, the undersigned finds that service was proper under Rule 45.

Next, the undersigned considers whether the requested documents are relevant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs the scope of discovery and provides that:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This rule is to be broadly construed with all doubts resolved in favor of open discovery. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits, and the information sought “must be relevant and not overly burdensome to the responding party.” Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). The scope of allowable discovery under a Rule 45 subpoena is the same as that governed by Rule 26. See Bahrami v. Maxie Price Chevrolet-Oldsmobile Inc., No. 1:11-cv-4483-SCJ-AJB, 2013 WL 3800336, at *3 (N.D. Ga. June 19, 2013) (collecting cases).

Here, the documents in TRS's possession plainly fall within the scope of permissible discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Records regarding the contribution plan are directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ ERISA claims, and TRS provided recordkeeping and other services while its parent corporation held the subject contribution plan as trustee. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ subpoena specifies a relevant date range and includes 25 requests for production specifically identifying the type of documents that they believe are in TRS's possession. Thus, the information Plaintiffs seek appears relevant and, absent any objection from TRS, not overly burdensome. See Washington, 959 F.2d at 1570.

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 26th day of October 2022.