Reynolds v. City of Rochester et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CONOR DWYER REYNOLDS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v. 	6:23-cv-06506 FPG CDH
CITY OF ROCHESTER, et al.,
Defendants
Currently pending before the Court are two motions pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 45 to quash non-party subpoenas served on Yale University
(“Yale”) and Cornell University (“Cornell”). (Dkt. 50; Dkt. 62). The motions have
been fully briefed, and oral argument was held before the Court on January 31, 2025.
(See Dkt. 73). In subsequent research, however, the Court has encountered case law
indicating that it may lack the ability to grant the requested relief.
Specifically, Rule 45(d)(3) limits the power to quash or modify a subpoena to
“the court for the district where compliance is required.” Most courts in the Second
Circuit follow the view that “compliance” occurs in the district where the non-party
is located. See Cleary v. Kaleida Health, No. 1:22-CV-00026(LJV)(JJM), 2024 WL
1297708, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2024) (collecting cases). For Yale and Cornell, this
is the District of Connecticut and the Northern District of New York, respectively.
Most courts in the Second Circuit also appear to follow the view that if they do
not sit in the district where compliance is required, then they lack the power to
resolve a Rule 45 motion, and the motion must be denied. See, e.g., Zou v. Han, No.
Case 6:23-cv-06506-FPG-CDH Document 76 Filed 03/19/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
23-CV-02370 (JMA) (JMW), 2024 WL 3328589, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. July 8, 2024); Greater
Chautauqua Fed. Credit Union v. Quattrone, No. 1:22-CV-2753 (MKV), 2024 WL
497521, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2024); In re Smerling Litig., No. 21 CIV. 2552 (JPC),
2022 WL 684148, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2022). In Zou, the court specifically denied
a Rule 45 motion despite the parties’ affirmative consent to its jurisdiction over the
motion. 2024 WL 3328589, at *7.
While the parties did not raise this issue in their original briefing, the Court
cannot resolve the pending motions to quash without giving it appropriate
consideration. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders the parties to submit briefing
addressing whether this Court has the power to resolve these motions to quash, or
whether the motions should be denied without prejudice to refiling in the districts
where compliance is required.1 The parties’ supplemental briefs are due within 14
days of the issuance of this Order, and shall be no longer than 10 pages.
SO ORDERED.
________________________________
COLLEEN D. HOLLAND
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: March 19, 2025
Rochester, New York
1 	Under Rule 45(f), the court where compliance is required may transfer a Rule
45 motion to this Court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or the if the
court finds exceptional circumstances.
Case 6:23-cv-06506-FPG-CDH Document 76 Filed 03/19/25 Page 2 of 2