Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04000/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04000-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Dey
Petitioner
Jeannemarie Durocher
Petitioner
Justin Victoria
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4000

___________

In re: Michael Dey; Justin Victoria; * On Petition for Writ

Jeannemarie Durocher, * of Mandamus

*

Petitioners. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: January 4, 2007

Filed: January 17, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Dey, Justin Victoria, and Jeannemarie Durocher (collectively,

petitioners) filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the

district court to vacate its orders refusing to quash the trial subpoenas served to

petitioners. 

In the underlying matter, which is not related to the issues on appeal, a plaintiff

sued Wyeth, Inc. and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc (collectively, Wyeth). The plaintiff

subpoenaed the petitioners, who are employees of Wyeth and were served more than

100 miles from the place of the trial. The petitioners filed motions to quash the

subpoenas arguing the subpoenas were not properly served pursuant to Federal Rule

Appellate Case: 06-4000 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268571
1

“Subject to [Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii)], a subpoena may be served at any place

within the district of the court by which it is issued, or at any place without the district

that is within 100 miles of the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or

inspection specified in the subpoena or at any place within the state where a state

statute or rule of court permits service of a subpoena issued by a state court of general

jurisdiction sitting in the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or

inspection specified in the subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2)

-2-

of Civil Procedure 45(b)(2).1

 The district court denied petitioners’ motions to quash.

Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandamus. 

The writ of mandamus “is a ‘drastic and extraordinary’ remedy ‘reserved for

really extraordinary causes.’” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the D.C., 542 U.S. 367,

380 (2004) (quoting Ex Parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60 (1947)). “To ensure that

mandamus remains an extraordinary remedy, petitioners must show that they lack

adequate alternative means to obtain the relief they seek and carry the burden of

showing that their right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” Mallard v.

U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (citations, quotation

marks, and alterations omitted). Here, assuming arguendo petitioners are entitled to

relief, petitioners have adequate alternative means to obtain relief because petitioners

can refuse to comply with the subpoenas, endure contempt sanctions, if any, and

immediately appeal those sanctions. Gialde v. Time, Inc., 480 F.2d 1295, 1300 (8th

Cir. 1973) (citing United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 532-33 (1971)); see also U.S.

Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 76 (1988)

(“The order finding a nonparty witness in contempt is appealable notwithstanding the

absence of a final judgment in the underlying action.”). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4000 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268571