1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

United States v. 3M Company

Case No. 3:20-mc-00017-TMB

By: THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY M. BURGESS

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

The matter comes before the Court on Respondent 3M’s Motion to Transfer under Rule 45(f) (the 

“Motion”).1

 3M asks the Court to transfer the United States’ Motion to Quash to the issuing court 

in the Northern District of Florida.2 The United States filed a Response and does not oppose 

transfer.

3

 The parties further stipulated (the “Joint Stipulation”) as to 3M’s response to the Motion 

to Quash.4

 The Court ACCEPTS the Joint Stipulation and, for the reasons discussed below, 

GRANTS the Motion.

The underlying Motion to Quash involves a subpoena seeking documents and testimony from 

Rosemarie Rotunno, who conducted an examination of one of the plaintiffs who is party to a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Florida.5

 The litigation concerns the safety of certain 

3M earplugs that allegedly caused plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and tinnitus.6 Rotunno is not 

a party to the litigation.7

 3M subsequently moved to transfer the Motion to Quash to the issuing 

court in the Northern District of Florida, arguing that the status of the multi-district litigation and 

“nonexistent interest” in local resolution of the Motion to Quash weighed in favor of transfer.8

 

While the United States disagrees with 3M’s justifications for transfer, it does not oppose transfer 

in this case.9

Rule 45(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow the Court to transfer a subpoena-related 

motion “if the person subject to the subpoena consents [to the transfer] or if the court finds 

exceptional circumstances.”10 The Advisory Committee notes state that “[i]n some 

circumstances . . . transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court’s 

1 Dkt. 5 (Motion).

2 Id. at 1; Dkt. 1 (Motion to Quash).

3 Dkt. 8 at 2 (Response).

4 Dkt. 9 (Joint Stipulation).

5 Dkt. 1 at 1–2; see In re 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 3:19-

md-2885-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla.). 6 See Dkt. 5 at 2.

7 Id.

8 Dkt. 5 at 3–6.

9 Dkt. 8 at 5.

10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f).

Case 3:20-mc-00058-MCR-GRJ Document 10 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
2

management of the underlying litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented 

by the motion or the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts.”11

Here, the Court concludes that the criteria under Rule 45(f) are met and that transfer is appropriate. 

3M has litigated discovery disputes before Judge Rodgers and Magistrate Judge Gary Jones in the 

Northern District of Florida.12 3M anticipates issuing similar subpoenas to federal employees in 

multiple districts.13 The multi-district litigation is complex—no less-so because of the COVID19 pandemic—and the Northern District of Florida has a strong interest in resolving the Motion to 

Quash with the benefit of its extensive experience with the underlying litigation and similar 

disputes.14 These are exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Rule 45(f) and the 

corresponding Advisory Committee guidance. Furthermore, the United States does not oppose 

transfer.15

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to 

transfer the United States’ Motion to Quash at Dkt. 1 to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Florida and close the case.

Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge.

DATE: October 13, 2020.

11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) Advisory Committee Notes on Rules (2013 Amendment).

12 Dkt. 5 at 6.

13 Id. at 3.

14 See Dkt. 7 (Notice of Supplemental Authority) (citing to a companion Motion to Transfer that 

was recently granted in the Middle District of Florida).

15 Dkt. 8 at 2.

Case 3:20-mc-00058-MCR-GRJ Document 10 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2