Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08111/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08111-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Medical Malpractice

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Penni Minor, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Muhammad A. Subhan, M.D.; et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-11-08111-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is defendants Muhammad A. Subhan, M.D., Barbara 

Harris-Feshami, M.D., and Kingman Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Kingman Regional Medical 

Center’s (collectively, the “Defendants”) Motion to Change Location of Trial (Doc. 107) 

filed on January 14, 2014. Defendants have requested oral argument on their motion. 

Plaintiff Penni Minor has not yet filed a Response. 

 Invoking the change of venue statute which governs the Court, 26 U.S.C. § 1404, 

Defendants request that, in the event this case goes to trial, trial be held “in the division 

of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona located nearest Kingman, Arizona” 

(Doc. 107 at 1–2) instead of in Phoenix, Arizona. Defendants acknowledge that “[t]his 

statute gives the trial court discretion on where best to hold the final trial hearing, taking 

into consideration the convenience of the parties and witnesses.” (Id. at 2). Here, 

Defendants fleetingly argue that holding the trial outside of Kingman, Arizona, would be 

inconvenient for Defendants, their attorneys, and unspecified lay witnesses. (Id. at 2–3). 

Defendants’ motion, however, fails to offer any specificity on what the Court should do 

Case 3:11-cv-08111-JAT Document 108 Filed 01/16/14 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

to remedy the alleged inconvenience. 

 This case was filed in the Prescott division of the District of Arizona. Normally, 

cases filed in the Prescott division are tried in Prescott, Arizona. Indeed, Prescott hosts 

the U.S. Federal Courthouse closest to Kingman, Arizona. However, the Prescott Federal 

Courthouse is currently unavailable because it has been deemed uninhabitable by the U.S. 

General Services Administration. Moreover, because of numerous problems with the 

courtroom within the Prescott Federal Courthouse, it has become the practice of the Court 

to try Prescott division cases in Phoenix. Although Defendants’ counsel makes reference 

to the inconvenience that would be suffered by himself, his clients, and unspecified lay 

witnesses if the trial were to be held outside of Kingman, his motion fails to consider the 

costs and inefficiencies that would be imposed on Plaintiff, opposing counsel, nonKingman-based lay witnesses, the Court, its staff, and the jurors in traveling to a distant 

location, incurring hotel and travel costs, and other concomitant inefficiencies associated 

with holding a federal civil trial outside of a United States Courthouse. 

 Moreover, Defendants’ motion ignores the practical fact that Prescott is an 

approximately 150 mile drive from Kingman1

 while Phoenix is an approximately 190 

mile drive.2

 Thus, even if the trial could be held in the U.S. Federal Courthouse in 

Prescott, Defendants, their counsel, and unspecified Kingman-based lay witnesses would 

incur substantially the same expenses and inconvenience travelling to Prescott as 

Phoenix. Whatever merits may lay in Defendants favor, there is no practical remedy 

available to the Court. 

 Additionally, in their Motion, Defendants attempt to justify their request by 

alluding to potential difficulty in compelling Kingman-based lay witnesses to appear on 

 

1

 Driving Directions from Kingman to Prescott, AZ, Google Maps, http://maps.google.com (follow “Get Directions” hyperlink; then search “A” for “Kingman, AZ” and search “B” for “Prescott, AZ”; then follow “Get Directions” 

hyperlink). 

2

 Driving Directions from Kingman to Phoenix, AZ, Google Maps, http://maps.google.com (follow “Get Directions” hyperlink; then search “A” for “Kingman, AZ” and search “B” for “Phoenix, AZ”; then follow “Get Directions” 

hyperlink). 

Case 3:11-cv-08111-JAT Document 108 Filed 01/16/14 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

behalf of Defendants. (Doc. 107 at 2–3 (“These witnesses are beyond the reach of 

process of the Court, sitting in Phoenix, Arizona, and have indicated their unwillingness 

or reticence to attend a trial in Phoenix, Arizona.”). Insofar as Defendants are arguing 

that the Court lacks subpoena power to compel a Kingman-based witness to appear in 

Phoenix, the Court reminds Defendants that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 permits a 

subpoena to compel a non-party’s attendance at a trial more than 100 miles away3

 if two 

conditions are met: (1) the trial is held within the state where the person resides, is 

employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and (2) the person would not incur 

substantial expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)–(c)(1)(B)(ii) (West 2014). Consequently, 

the Court’s subpoena power can, in fact, extend to Kingman-based witnesses. Therefore, 

if the party seeking the witness’s attendance has a good faith belief that compelled 

attendance would not subject that witness to substantial expense or undue burden, then 

the lawyer may issue a subpoena to compel that witness’s attendance.4

 Moreover, in the 

event that a witness successfully quashes a subpoena or the party seeking attendance 

believes the subpoena cannot issue because it would subject the witness to substantial 

expense, the party seeking that witness’s attendance may offer a deposition of that 

witness at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4).5

 Consequently, Defendants nonspecific 

concerns regarding witness availability fail to persuade the Court that the location of the 

trial should be changed. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Change Location of Trial (Doc. 

 

3

 The Court notes that both Prescott and Phoenix are more than 100 miles away from Kingman, Arizona. 

4

 The Court notes that nothing in this Order shall be construed as a limit on or 

modification of a person’s ability to quash a subpoena compelling his attendance at the Phoenix trial. Upon receipt of any such subpoena, a witness may move to quash the subpoena on the grounds that attending the Phoenix trial would subject the witness to substantial expense or undue burden, or any other permissible ground. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). 

5

 Of course, this assumes a deposition of such witness was taken within the 

discovery deadline. 

Case 3:11-cv-08111-JAT Document 108 Filed 01/16/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

107) is DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any subpoena compelling a person who lives, 

works, and transacts business regularly over 100 miles away from Phoenix to attend the 

Phoenix trial must be served not later than 60 days prior to trial. A copy of this Order 

must be served concurrently with any subpoena compelling such person’s attendance at 

the Phoenix trial. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any person seeking to quash a subpoena so 

served must move to do so not later than 50 days prior to trial. Any person so moving 

may write directly to the Court and should include the above case number and caption so 

that the Court may timely consider the motion to quash. 

 Dated this 16th day of January, 2014. 

Case 3:11-cv-08111-JAT Document 108 Filed 01/16/14 Page 4 of 4