State of New York et al v. Rinner

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STATE OF NEW YORK and STATE OF
COLORADO,
Movants,
v.
WILLIAM J. RINNER,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-MC-00652 (NRM)
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
In this miscellaneous action, the State of New York and the State of Colorado
(“Movants”) move to compel Respondent William J. Rinner to comply with a subpoena
to appear at a deposition issued by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. 	Movants also move to transfer further subpoena-related
disputes to that court, and for attorney’s fees.
Because 	the 	parties 	are 	familiar with the 	facts, 	the 	Court 	only 	briefly
summarizes them here. In January 2025, the United States filed suit in the Northern
District of California to block the merger of two large wireless networking solutions
companies, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks. See United States v.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., No. 25-CV-00951 (PCP) (N.D. Cal.) (the “HPE
Action”). Trial was set to begin in the Northern District of California on July 9, 2025.
HPE Action, Order, ECF No. 104. Two weeks before trial, however, the United States
announced that the parties had reached a settlement. HPE Action, Stipulation, ECF
No. 217. 	At the time, Respondent William J. Rinner was the Head of Merger
Case 1:26-mc-00652-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Enforcement in the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division. 	Movants
allege that Respondent was an outspoken opponent of the settlement within the
Department. 	See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Compel (“Mem.”) at 5–6, ECF No. 1-1.1
Soon after the settlement announcement, Respondent was fired from the DOJ, under
what Movants aver were suspicious circumstances. Mem. at 5–6.
The presiding judge in the Northern District of California then turned to
review the United States’s proposed settlement agreement, pursuant to the public
interest determination provision of the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(e). Movants New
York and Colorado, along with eleven other States, moved to intervene as parties,
and the court granted the motion. HPE Action, ECF Nos. 236, 332. The Intervenor-
States then sought discovery from several non-parties, including a subpoena for the
deposition of Respondent, which the Northern District of California ordered on
December 22, 2025. 	See Decl. of Michael Schwartz dated Feb. 19, 2026 (“Schwartz
Decl.”), Ex. 1 (“Subpoena”), ECF No. 1-4. On January 26, 2026, the DOJ filed a letter
raising a number of discovery disputes, including a request to quash the Subpoena.
HPE Action, Ltr., ECF No. 362. At a hearing on February 10, 2026, the court rejected
the DOJ’s request and ordered compliance, later affirming the ruling in a written
order. HPE Action, ECF Nos. 366, 378.
Notwithstanding 	the 	order 	of 	compliance 	from 	the 	Northern 	District 	of
California, Respondent has stated that he is “unwilling to attend a deposition without
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all page references use the pagination generated
by the Electronic Case Filing System.
Case 1:26-mc-00652-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
an order issued by a court in the jurisdiction in which he resides,” which is the
Eastern District of New York. 	Schwartz Decl., Ex. 4 (“DOJ Objections”) at 11, ECF
No. 1-7. 	Movants thus filed the instant motion on February 19, 2026. 	This Court
ordered Respondent to file any opposition by February 25, 2026 at noon Eastern
Time, and he did not do so.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Compliance with the Subpoena
A valid subpoena has been issued by the Northern District of California
directing Respondent to appear for a video deposition. 	Subpoena at 2. 	Respondent
has not filed an opposition to the motion to compel. 	Respondent previously raised
several challenges to the Subpoena before the court in the Northern District of
California, including that (1) the Tunney Act did not authorize depositions; (2)
Respondent’s testimony was not relevant for the underlying disposition; (3) the DOJ’s
Touhy regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 16.21 et seq., categorically barred Respondent’s
testimony; and (4) the information sought by the Movants was protected under the
government’s deliberative process privilege. See DOJ Objections at 10–12.
Each of these issues has been addressed and resolved by Judge P. Casey Pitts
in the underlying action. 	See Schwartz Decl., Ex. 3 (“Discovery Hearing Tr.”) at 6,
36–42, ECF No. 1-6; HPE Action, Order, ECF No. 378. This Court agrees with Judge
Pitts’s analysis, but even if it did not, “[t]he law of the case doctrine commands that
‘when a court has ruled on an issue, that decision should generally be adhered
to . . . in subsequent stages in the same case . . . .’” 	Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95,
Case 1:26-mc-00652-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
99 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1225 (2d Cir.
2002)). That is especially so where, as here, “one judge or court is asked to consider
the ruling of a different judge or court.” 	Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478, 490 (2d Cir.
2008) (quoting Lillbask ex rel. Mauclaire v. State of Conn. Dep’t of Educ., 397 F.3d 77,
94 (2d Cir. 2005)). “Courts should reconsider prior decisions only when presented with
compelling circumstances, namely: ‘(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2)
new evidence, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
injustice.’” Nat’l Coal. on Black Civic Participation v. Wohl, 661 F. Supp. 3d 78, 108
(S.D.N.Y. 2023) (quoting United States v. Carr, 557 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2009)). No
such circumstances exist here. Judge Pitts’s rulings on the Subpoena thus “forecloses
a ‘second bite at the apple’ before this Court.” Shelby v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., No. 10-
MC-59A, 2011 WL 1118613, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2011).
Respondent is ordered to comply with the Subpoena by appearing for his
deposition within five days of this Order, i.e., by Monday, March 2, 2026.
II. 	Transfer to Issuing Court Under Rule 45(f)
Movants also request that the Court transfer any further disputes arising from
the Subpoena, including disputes that may arise during the deposition itself, to the
issuing court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f). 	Rule 45(f) permits
transfer 	of 	subpoena-related 	motions 	to 	the 	issuing 	court 	“if 	the 	court 	finds
exceptional circumstances.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). 	For example, “transfer may be
warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the
underlying litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by
Case 1:26-mc-00652-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
the motion or the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts.” Owen
v. Audubon Field Sols., LLC, No. 25-MC-00588 (MMG), 2026 WL 445187, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Advisory Committee’s Notes to
2013 Amendment).
Such exceptional circumstances are present here. Judge Pitts has already held
three hearings and issued rulings on a significant number of discovery-related
disputes in this case, including a motion to quash the very Subpoena at issue. 	See
HPE Action, ECF Nos. 366, 378, 388, 399, 403. 	He is thus intimately familiar not
only with the underlying litigation, but with the discovery issues raised by the
parties. 	Furthermore, many of the potential concerns related to the Subpoena are
also applicable to the other discovery requests by the States. 	For example, the
government in the underlying case has raised deliberative-privilege concerns for
internal documents sought by the States, and Judge Pitts explicitly contemplated
that he would resolve such disputes on a case-by-case basis. See Discovery Hearing
Tr. at 40–41, 52 (ruling on Respondent’s deposition “subject to the discussion that we
are going to have about deliberative process privilege,” and noting that “we can revisit
that as we go”). 	“Given this degree of involvement and familiarity, allowing the
issuing court to resolve enforcement of the subpoena would promote judicial economy
and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings.” Drummond Co., Inc. v. VICE Media LLC,
No. 21-MC-859 (AJN), 2022 WL 445681, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2022) (quoting N.
Atl. Operating Co. v. Dunhuang Grp., No. 18-MC-154 (LPS), 2018 WL 3381300, at *2
(D. Del. July 11, 2018)).
Case 1:26-mc-00652-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
There are also pending deadlines that heighten concerns of inconsistent
rulings. The hearing to review the underlying settlement is currently scheduled for
March 23, 2026, less than one month from the date of this Order. Mem. at 7. Failing
to transfer future disputes is thus “likely to interfere with the issuing court’s
management of the underlying case,” and “runs the risk of issuing a ruling, weeks
before trial, that is at odds with the underlying court’s decision on similar issues.” In
re Subpoenas to Leeds Equity Partners, No. 25-MC-0079 (MKV), 2025 WL 2662583,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 17, 2025); see id. (collecting cases).
Finally, the Court finds that resolution of these disputes by the issuing court
is unlikely to impose a significant burden on Respondent. 	The Court observes from
the docket that all three discovery hearings in the underlying case were held
telephonically over Zoom, and there is no indication that Judge Pitts will not continue
to accommodate such conferences for Respondent. 	See HPE Action, ECF Nos. 365,
384, 397. 	Moreover, as Movants note, Respondent’s counsel are attorneys for the
Department of Justice, who affirmatively chose to litigate the underlying dispute in
the Northern District of California. Mem. at 13.
III. 	Attorney’s Fees
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), the prevailing party in a
motion to compel “is presumptively entitled to an award of motion expenses, including
reasonable attorney’s fees.” Kregler v. City of New York, No. 08-CV-6893 (VM), 2013
WL 1415228, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2013). 	“The plain terms of Rule 37(a)(5)(A) —
‘the court must’ — imposes a mandatory award of expenses.” 	Wager v. G4S Secure
Case 1:26-mc-00652-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Integration, LLC, No. 19-CV-03547 (MKV), 2021 WL 293076, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28,
2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)). The three exceptions outlined in the Rule
are: “(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the
disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure,
response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make
an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). “[I]t is widely accepted that
an award of expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) is mandatory unless one of the three
exceptions applies.” Wager, 2021 WL 293076, at *4.
No exception applies here. 	Movants represent that they have previously
conferred with Respondent and his counsel to depose him without court intervention
and failed to do so. Mem. at 14. Respondent’s refusal to comply with the Subpoena
is not substantially justified. Not only has Respondent failed to oppose or otherwise
respond to the motion to compel, Judge Pitts has already evaluated and denied his
earlier motion to quash the Subpoena. No other justifying circumstances have been
presented to this Court, nor does the Court independently find any on this record.
Movants’ request for fees and expenses in relation to this motion is granted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to compel, the motion to transfer, and
the motion for attorney’s fees are granted. Respondent is ordered to comply with the
Subpoena by appearing for his deposition within five days of this Order. All further
disputes related to the Subpoena are hereby transferred to the issuing court.
Case 1:26-mc-00652-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
/s/ Nina R. Morrison
NINA R. MORRISON
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 25, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-mc-00652-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>