In the case In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., No. 23-md-03084-CRB (LJC) (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2024), California Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros determined that her court had the authority to hear subpoena-related motions, and that doing so would serve the goals of justice, judicial economy, and efficiency in deciding that she would consolidate them to her court.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this multi-district litigation (MDL) involving allegations that Uber failed to implement appropriate safety precautions to protect passengers which led to alleged incidents of sexual assault or harassment by drivers using the Uber application, Judge Cisneros addressed the extent of her court’s authority, as the MDL transferee court, to decide motions to quash, motions to modify, and/or motions to enforce document subpoenas.

While noting: “A motion to quash or modify a subpoena must be brought in ‘the court for the district where compliance is required’” and that “A motion to enforce a subpoena must also be brought in the court where compliance is required”, Judge Cisneros stated: “Several courts have recognized, however, that the statute which governs MDL proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § 1407, ‘provides different rules for discovery.’” She also stated: “Under Section 1407(b), ‘an MDL court has the authority to enforce deposition subpoenas even if the court does not sit in the district where the deposition would be held.’”

Continuing, she said: “On the other hand, ‘[c]ourts are split on the question of whether § 1407(b) also authorizes an MDL court to enforce a documents-only subpoena requiring compliance in a different district.’…Some courts have found that ‘the rationale underlying the MDL statute of ‘just and efficient’ resolution of pretrial proceedings requires the conclusion that Section 1407(b)’s grant of authority applies to both deposition subpoenas and documents-only subpoenas.’…Others have held that Section 1407(b) ‘expands a transferee court’s discovery powers only to pretrial depositions.’…This Court finds persuasive the reasoning in U.S. ex rel. Pogue and In re Welding Rod Products Liability Litigation, and holds that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(b), it may adjudicate motions to quash, modify, and/or enforce document-only subpoenas that require compliance outside the issuing district as part of its authority to conduct consolidated pretrial proceedings in this multidistrict litigation.”

Determining “in which circumstances it would be permissible for it to exercise such authority to resolve out-of-district subpoena related disputes”, Judge Cisneros stated: “First, Rule 45(f), as described above, provides that subpoena-related motions may be transferred by the court where compliance is required when the person or entity subject to the subpoena consents, or if the court where compliance is required finds exceptional circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). If the nonparty consents, then the subpoena-related dispute may also be filed in the first instance in this Court… Second, where a subpoena-related motion has been filed in the district where compliance is required, the JPML also has the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) to transfer the dispute to the MDL court. Indeed, the parties have proposed that litigants may seek to transfer subpoena-related motions to this Court through the JPML transfer process… Accordingly, this Court will decide motions to quash, enforce, or modify document-only subpoenas when the nonparty subject to the subpoena consents, or when the motion has been transferred to this Court by the JPML or the court in the district where compliance is required.”

Finally, noting: “A recent status report indicated that there are potentially numerous subpoena-related disputes”, Judge Cisneros stated: “In light of these considerations, the Court finds that transferring such subpoena-related motions to this Court will significantly promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions that have been consolidated in this MDL.” So, she found “that the transfer of subpoena-related motions to this Court will serve the goals of justice, judicial economy, and efficiency in this MDL. Motions that meet the criteria above will be heard using Zoom to minimize the expense and burden on nonparties.”

So, what do you think? Should MDLs have different approaches to subpoena-related motions than other cases? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.