Who Can Object to a Subpoena?

In FG Hemisphere Associates, LLC v. Democratic Rep. of Congo, 2024 WL 4553371 (D. Md. Oct. 23, 2024), plaintiff FGH sought to enforce a judgment against the Democratic Republic of Congo and others.  In doing so, FGH propounded discovery.

In pertinent part, FGH served 20 subpoenas on third-party financial institutions.

The defendants moved to quash them.  They argued that: they had already produced “voluminous documentation” showing that the subject property was not obtained using embezzled funds; the subpoenas maligned them by referring to embezzled funds; the subpoenas were excessively broad; and, the requests did not comply with State law governing disclosure of financial records.  Id. at *4.

The Court wrote that:

Under Rule 45, a party ordinarily “does not have standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a nonparty unless the party claims some personal right or privilege in the information sought by the subpoena.” United States v. Idema, 118 F. App’x 740, 744 (4th Cir. 2005); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena John Doe, No. 05GJ1318, 584 F.3d 175, 184 n.14 (4th Cir. 2009); Eichenwald v. Rivello, 321 F. Supp. 3d 562, 564 (D. Md. 2018) (“A party generally lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third-party absent a claim of privilege, proprietary interest, or personal interest in the subpoenaed matter. A motion to quash, or for a protective order, should generally be made by the person from whom the documents or things are requested.”). “This general rule applies whenever a party challenges a subpoena, including when the party challenges a subpoena on the ground that it seeks irrelevant information.” Eichenwald v. Rivello, 321 F. Supp. 3d 562, 564 (D. Md. 2018); see also Marriott Int’l, Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 8:19-MD-02879, 2021 WL 7083238, at *6 (D. Md. Jan. 22, 2021) (Grimm, J.). Defendants have not plausibly asserted any privilege, proprietary interest, or personal interest in the subpoenaed matter. See Elat v. Ngoubene, No. PWG-11-2931, 2013 WL 12323806 (D. Md. July 10, 2013). Accordingly, they lack standing to challenge the subpoenas, and the Omnibus Motion is DENIED.

Id. at *4 (emphasis added).

The Court added that, even if defendants had standing, it would not quash the subpoenas.  The requests were deemed relevant and proportional.

The Court recognized an inapposite exception to the general rule: “Some courts have entertained a party’s challenge to a subpoena when the subpoena was issued in violation of the Court’s scheduling order….  There is good reason to allow parties to challenge untimely subpoenas, but the Court does not reach that question here. FGH’s subpoenas were timely issued.”  Id. at n. 2.

The FG Hemisphere Court also wrote that the non-parties could seek relief if the subpoenas were too broad.  A Maryland State court recently held, as a novel issue, that non-parties served with a subpoena have standing to assert that the discovery request was overbroad or sought information that was not relevant.  See What Objections May Be Raised to a Subpoena by a Non-Party? (Oct. 15, 2024).

The Court also rejected the assertions that the reference to “embezzled funds” was malicious and the State-law argument.  It noted that there was a protective order in place to protect confidential documents.  It resolved a number of other disputes.