James v. Leucadia Asset Management LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
PATRICK JAMES,
Petitioner,
v.
Leucadia Asset Management LLC,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:25-mc-55
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner 	Patrick 	James 	moves 	to 	quash 	Respondent 	Leucadia 	Asset
Management 	LLC’s 	Rule 	45 subpoena. 	For the following reasons, 	the 	Court
TRANSFERS the motion to quash to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The subpoena at issue relates to the In re First Brands bankruptcy case
pending in the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Texas. 	See In re First
Brands Group, No. 25-90399 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.). 	Mr. James moves to quash the
subpoena as prejudicial and claims that it will impose an undue burden. 	(ECF
No. 1-1.) Specifically, he claims that (1) the “subpoena is seemingly retaliatory”; (2)
he does not have the relevant information Respondent seeks; (3) he is subject of
ongoing discovery in the adversary proceeding; (4) the deposition threatens his Fifth
Case: 1:25-mc-00055-JPC Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/06/26 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Amendment right against self-incrimination; and (5) he does not have sufficient time
to comply with the subpoena. (Id., PageID #20–22.)
Respondent opposes the motion. (ECF No. 3.) In doing so, Respondent asserts
that the nature of Mr. James’s arguments is “based on the pendency of other discovery
and 	case 	management” 	in 	the 	underlying 	bankruptcy 	proceedings. 	(Id.,
PageID #540–41.) Therefore, Respondent sought Mr. James’s consent to transfer the
motion to the bankruptcy court. (Id.)
ANALYSIS
Under Rule 45(f), “[w]hen the court where compliance is required did not issue
the subpoena, it may transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the
person 	subject 	to 	the 	subpoena 	consents 	or 	if 	the 	court 	finds 	exceptional
circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f).
In evaluating whether exceptional circumstances exist, courts should consider
“case complexity, procedural posture, duration of pendency, and the nature of the
issues pending before, or already resolved by, the issuing court in the underlying
litigation.” 	Parker Compound Bows, Inc. v. Hunter’s Mfg. Co. Inc., No. 5:15-mc-64,
2015 WL 7308655, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Nov., 19, 2015) (quoting Judicial Watch, Inc. v.
Valle Del Sol, Inc., 307 F.R.D. 30, 34 (D.D.C. 2014)). 	Additionally, transfer may be
warranted where a ruling could disrupt management of the underlying litigation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory committee’s note to 2013 amendment.
In determining whether transfer is appropriate, “the prime concern should be
avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas.” 	Id. 	In other words,
Case: 1:25-mc-00055-JPC Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/06/26 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
transfer is appropriate only if the exceptional circumstances “outweigh the interest
of the nonparty served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion.”
Id. 	However, the decision whether to transfer a motion to the court overseeing the
underlying litigation lies within the discretion of the court. See F.T.C. v. A+ Fin. Ctr.,
LLC, No. 1:13-mc-50, 2013 WL 6388539, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2013) (collecting
cases).
Here, exceptional circumstances exist for transfer of the motion to quash to the
bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Texas. 	The bankruptcy court is
overseeing the underlying Chapter 11 case, which gives rise to the subpoena at issue,
and the adversary proceeding against Mr. James. 	See First Brands Group, LLC v.
Patrick James, Adv. Proc. No. 25-3803 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.). Its experience in managing
these complex and involved proceedings has given that court an understanding of the
pertinent factual and legal issues and how discovery generally, and the motion to
quash in particular, bear on the development of those issues and advance the overall
litigation. 	This background makes the bankruptcy court better suited to assess the
need for the deposition of Mr. James and to rule on the motion.
Additionally, the bankruptcy court already has hearings scheduled in the
coming days to address, among other things, other potential discovery obligations of
Mr. James, including the possibility of additional depositions. Therefore, a ruling in
the Northern District of Ohio on the same or similar topic runs the risk of disrupting
or interfering with the bankruptcy court’s orderly management of the litigation before
it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory committee’s note to 2013 amendment (explaining
Case: 1:25-mc-00055-JPC Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/06/26 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
that “transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court's
management of the underlying litigation”).
For these reasons, the exceptional circumstances present in the record of this
case outweigh the burden on Mr. James of litigating his motion to quash in the
bankruptcy court, where he is a defendant to the adversary proceeding, and his
interest in a local resolution of the motion. Accordingly, the Court TRANSFERS the
motion to quash (ECF No. 1) to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Texas.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2026
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 1:25-mc-00055-JPC Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/06/26 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>