Sahin v. Saglam

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
GOKHAN SAHIN,
Petitioner, 	Case No. 1:26-cv-101
Bowman, M.J.
ZEYNEP JULIDE SAGLAM,
Respondent.
ORDER
This Hague Convention case is currently before the Court on Petitioner’s motion
to quash subpoena to Miami University and the parties’ responsive memoranda. 	Also
before the Court is Respondent’s motion to compel. Counsel for the parties appeared
by, phone on October 5, 2026 for a status conference. The motions will be addressed in
turn.
A. Petitioner’s motion to Quash Subpoena 	(Docs. 17, 20)1
Petitioner commenced this action under the Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects 	of 	International 	Child 	Abduction 	and 	the 	International 	Child 	Abduction
Remedies Act (“ICARA”), seeking the return of the parties’ minor child from the United
States to Turkey. Petitioner alleges that the child’s habitual residence was Turkey
immediately before Respondent removed or retained the child in the United States.
Petitioner 	further 	alleges 	that 	the 	parties 	and 	the 	child 	lived 	in 	Turkey 	from
approximately July 2020 until September 2025, when Respondent returned to the
1 Petitioner originally filed the motion to quash on June 22, 2026. The motion was then refiled as a searchable PDF
in compliance with Local Rule 5.1 on June 23, 2026. (Doc. 20).
Case: 1:26-cv-00101-SKB Doc #: 39 Filed: 10/08/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
United States with the child. (Doc. 20 at 3-4). Respondent disputes Petitioner’s position
concerning habitual residence. According to Respondent, the parties married in Ohio in
2005 and primarily lived in Ohio throughout the marriage. Respondent further maintains
that, before the parties’ travel to Turkey in 2020, Petitioner had been a longtime Ohio
resident and employee of Miami University. Respondent contends that the parties’ time
in Turkey began as a temporary visit to care for Petitioner’s mother, but the stay
became 	extended 	because 	of 	the 	COVID-19 	pandemic 	and 	family 	medical
circumstances. (Doc. 27 at 1-2). The Court does not resolve those factual disputes in
this Order. They bear, however, on the parties’ discovery dispute because the location
and 	character 	of 	the 	family’s 	residence, 	the 	parents’ 	shared 	intentions, 	and 	the
circumstances surrounding the child’s residence are central to the parties’ competing
habitual-residence positions.
In connection with discovery, Respondent served a subpoena duces tecum on
Miami University, Petitioner’s employer. As described by the parties, the subpoena
requests: (1) all employment and pay records relating to Petitioner for a twenty-one-year
period; 	(2) 	communications 	between 	Miami 	University 	and 	Petitioner 	concerning
employment terms and other employment-related matters for that same period; (3)
employment records and correspondence concerning Petitioner’s teaching assignments
from 	2018 	through 	the 	present; 	(4) 	employment 	records 	and 	correspondence
concerning future or upcoming teaching assignments; (5) employment records and
correspondence concerning any sabbatical or leave of absence during Petitioner’s
employment; (6) W-2 forms and pay stubs issued during Petitioner’s employment; and
Case: 1:26-cv-00101-SKB Doc #: 39 Filed: 10/08/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
(7) documents concerning Petitioner’s retirement plans, deferred compensation, and
other retirement benefits. (Doc. 17, Ex. A).
Petitioner moves to quash the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45. He maintains that the requests are beyond the scope of permissible discovery,
irrelevant to the narrow habitual-residence issue, overbroad as to subject matter and
time, and unduly burdensome to Miami University. (Doc. 20). Petitioner emphasizes that
Respondent seeks, in some instances, more than two decades of employment and
financial records, including income, retirement, and benefit information. Petitioner also
asserts that he is willing to provide nonprotected information responsive to appropriately
tailored discovery requests. (Id).
Rule 	45 	of 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	permits 	parties 	in 	legal
proceedings to command non-parties to attend depositions. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1).
Determining 	the 	scope 	of 	subpoenas 	is 	within 	the 	court’s 	discretion. 	Bush 	v.
Dictaphone Corp., 161 F.3d 363, 367 (6th Cir. 1998). 	Rule 45 mandates that courts
must quash or modify subpoenas that place “undue burden” upon the persons served.
Fed. R. Civ. P (45)(c)(3)(iv). “In considering whether the discovery sought is unduly
burdensome, the Court considers whether ‘the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in
controversy, the parties' resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues.’” Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, No. 2:11–mc–16, 2011
WL 4714000, *1, *5 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) (citing Surles
ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir.2007)). 	Courts
also consider nonparty status to be a significant factor in the undue-burden analysis.
Case: 1:26-cv-00101-SKB Doc #: 39 Filed: 10/08/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Charters v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., No. 09–50157, 2009 WL 818185, *1, *2 (E.D.
Mich. 2009) (citing N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 231 F.R.D. 49, 51 (D.D.C.2005)).
Here, Petitioner has not shown that quashing the subpoena is warranted. The
subpoena is directed to Miami University, not Petitioner, and Petitioner identifies neither
a privilege nor a particular personal right sufficient to support his challenge to the
nonparty subpoena. His principal objection, undue burden, belongs to Miami University,
which 	has 	not 	objected 	to 	compliance 	and 	reportedly 	was 	prepared 	to 	produce
responsive documents pending resolution of this Motion. (Doc. 27 at 5). Further, the
requested employment-related information is relevant to Respondent’s defense that
Ohio, rather than Turkey, was the child’s habitual residence and that the parties’ time in
Turkey 	was 	temporary. 	Petitioner’s 	generalized 	objections 	concerning 	relevance,
breadth, and the subpoena’s temporal scope do not establish a basis for relief under
Rule 45(d)(3). The Motions to Quash (Docs 17, 20) are therefore DENIED.
B. Motion to Compel (Doc. 33)
Respondent Zeynep seeks to compel Petitioner Gokhan Sahin to serve his Rule
26(a)(1) initial disclosures and respond to Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents (Doc. 33). Petitioner filed a memorandum in
opposition (Doc. 36), and Respondent filed a reply (Doc. 37). The motion was ripe for
the Court’s review on September 25, 2026.
Here, Respondent served the discovery requests at issue on May 6, 2026. (Doc.
33 at 2). Petitioner concedes that, as of September 11, 2026, he had not served
responses to Respondent’s interrogatories or requests for production and had not
served his initial disclosures. (Doc. 36). Rather, Petitioner represented that he was
Case: 1:26-cv-00101-SKB Doc #: 39 Filed: 10/08/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
nearing completion of his discovery responses and disclosures and anticipated serving
them by September 18, 2026. (Id.). At the October 5, 2026, status conference, counsel
for Petitioner represented that the outstanding discovery responses would be filed that
day.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff failed to follow the required
procedure for presenting discovery disputes to the Court before filing the instant Motion.
Pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 37.1 and this Court’s standing procedures, the parties are
required to exhaust all extrajudicial means of resolving a discovery dispute and, if
unsuccessful, contact the Court to request an informal discovery conference before
filing a discovery motion. 	Plaintiff did not do so here. Instead, Plaintiff filed the instant
motion to compel and subsequently contacted the Court expressing concern that the
unresolved discovery dispute was preventing the case from moving forward. The Court
notes that the very purpose of its informal discovery conference procedure is to facilitate
the prompt resolution of discovery disputes without the delay associated with formal
motion practice. 	Had Plaintiff followed that procedure here, the parties’ dispute likely
could have been addressed and resolved much earlier, without the delay attendant to
formal motion practice. The parties are reminded that any future discovery disputes
must be presented to the Court in accordance with the Local Rules and this Court’s
standing procedures.
In any event, it is well established that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)
requires a party to provide its initial disclosures at or within 14 days after the parties’
Rule 	26(f) 	conference 	unless 	otherwise 	stipulated 	or 	ordered. 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P.
26(a)(1)(C). 	A 	party 	served 	with 	interrogatories 	must 	serve 	its 	answers 	and 	any
Case: 1:26-cv-00101-SKB Doc #: 39 Filed: 10/08/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
objections within 30 days, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), and a party served with requests for
production must respond in writing within 30 days, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). Under
Rule 37(a), a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery when
another party fails to make disclosures required by Rule 26(a) or fails to answer an
interrogatory or produce documents as requested. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A)–(B).
No dispute remains that Petitioner’s initial disclosures and written discovery
responses were overdue when Respondent filed her motion. Petitioner’s representation
that he anticipated serving the materials after filing his opposition does not resolve the
motion or establish a basis to further delay discovery. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion
(Doc. 33) is well taken and herein GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner
shall, within 7 days of this Order: (1) Serve complete initial disclosures required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1); 	(2) Serve complete written answers to
Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories, including any objections Petitioner contends
have not been waived; and (3) Serve complete written responses to Respondent’s First
Requests 	for 	Production 	and 	produce 	all 	nonprivileged 	responsive 	documents 	in
Petitioner’s possession, custody, or control, or identify with specificity the reasonable
time by which any identified responsive documents will be produced.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:26-cv-00101-SKB Doc #: 39 Filed: 10/08/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>