Allegheny Cnty. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Energy Transfer LP
Allegheny Cnty. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Energy Transfer LP
2023 WL 2642931 (E.D. Pa. 2023)
January 19, 2023
McHugh Jr., Gerald A., United States District Judge
Summary
The court denied Defendants' Motion to Enforce December 7, 2022 Stipulation and Order and to Quash Lead Plaintiffs' Untimely Subpoenas to Produce Documents Directed to Non-Parties. The court found that Plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to serve the subpoenas and that the 100-mile rule of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(A) was inapplicable, as compliance with the subpoenas simply required producing documents and ESI.
Additional Decisions
ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ENERGY TRANSFER LP et al., Defendants
v.
ENERGY TRANSFER LP et al., Defendants
CIVIL ACTION No. 20-200
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Filed January 19, 2023
Counsel
Adam H. Wierzbowski, Michael M. Mathai, John Christopher Browne, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY, James M. Ficaro, The Weiser Law Firm PC, Berwyn, PA, Mark S. Goldman, Goldman Scarlato & Penny PC, Conshohocken, PA, Meghan Jane Talbot, Pogust Goodhead LLC, Conshohocken, PA, Andrew Jimin Heo, Chad Allen Carder, Danielle M. Weiss, Jeffrey A. Barrack, Jeffrey W. Golan, Robert A. Hoffman, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Philadelphia, PA, Jacob A. Goldberg, The Rosen Law Firm, Jenkintown, PA, James M. Fee, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, New York City, NY, Richard D. Gluck, Seltzer Wilkins McMahon Vitek, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs.Brian M. Lutz, Brian Michael Lutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Colin B. Davis, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA, Craig Zieminski, Graham Carney, James Frederick Hopper, Jr., Michael C. Holmes, Robert P. Ritchie, K. Virginia Burke Debeer, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX, John T. Cox, III, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX, Curtis J. Crowther, Robinson & Cole LLP, Wilmington, DE, Diana Amaral Silva, Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Laura H. McNally, Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant Energy Transfer LP.
Brian M. Lutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Colin B. Davis, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA, Craig Zieminski, Graham Carney, James Frederick Hopper, Jr., Michael C. Holmes, Robert P. Ritchie, K. Virginia Burke Debeer, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX, John T. Cox, III, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX, Curtis J. Crowther, Robinson & Cole LLP, Wilmington, DE, Diana Amaral Silva, Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Laura H. McNally, Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants Kelcy L. Warren, Thomas E. Long.
Brian M. Lutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Colin B. Davis, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA, Diana Amaral Silva, Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP, Bala Cynwyd, PA, John T. Cox, III, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX, Graham Carney, James Frederick Hopper, Jr., Robert P. Ritchie, K. Virginia Burke Debeer, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Laura H. McNally, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants Marshall S. Mccrea, III, Matthew S. Ramsey.
McHugh Jr., Gerald A., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 This 19th day of January, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Enforce December 7, 2022 Stipulation and Order Regarding Extension of Fact and Expert Discovery Deadlines and to Quash Lead Plaintiffs' Untimely Subpoenas to Produce Documents Directed to Non-Parties, ECF 141, is DENIED.
“The conduct of discovery is a matter for the discretion of the district court.” Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs made reasonable efforts to serve the subpoenas at issue by the December 16 deadline set in the prior stipulation; Plaintiffs provided the Defendants with notice of the subpoenas by the deadline, requested that same-day service be accomplished by their process server on December 16, and the process server ultimately succeeded in serving all the subpoenas within two business days of the deadline. See Pls.' Ex. A, ECF 142-1; Pls.' Ex. B, 142-2. Any violation of the deadline was unintentional and de minimis, and insufficient to justify quashing the subpoenas.
As to the validity of the subpoenas, which are returnable in New York, courts have generally concluded that the 100-mile rule of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(A) is inapplicable where “the subpoenaed person is not instructed to also appear at the production location along with the requested documents.” See CresCom Bank v. Terry, 269 F. Supp. 3d 708, 713 (D.S.C. 2017) (compiling cases and noting that production of documents is now typically “accomplished electronically or by mail.”); accord Aetna Inc. v. Mednax, Inc., No. 18-CV-02217-WB, 2019 WL 6250850, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2019) (Lloret, J.). Here, compliance with the subpoenas simply requires producing documents and electronically stored information, Defs.' Ex. A, ECF 141-2,[1] and as such there is no violation of the protections established by the 100-mile limitation.