## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638 C HAUNTE O TT, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C ITY OF M IL WAUK EE, etal. , D efend a nts. A PPEALS OF : W ISCO NSIN D EP ART MEN T OF C OR R EC T I ONS a nd W ISCO NSIN S TATEC R I ME L ABO RATO RY, A pp ella nts.

Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:09- CV-00870- RTR

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 28, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AY 29, 2012

Befo re B AUER, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Fo l l owing hi s v i nd i cati on a fter hi s wr ongful convi cti on a nd i ncarc er ati on f orthe 1995 m u rd er ofJ e s s ica P ay n e, C h au n te O tt br ou gh t a civ il ri ghts acti on a gainst the Ci ty ofM ilw au kee and sev er al2 N os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638 pol i ce o ffi cer s. That ca se i s s ti l lpending. Thi s a pp eal w as fi l e d wh e n Ot ts e r v e d s ub po e na s o n t wo n o n- party st at e ag en ci es, th e W i sc o ns i n Cr i m e Lab o r at o r y a nd the W i s c o ns i n De pa r t men to fCo r r e c t i o ns . R a the r than com p l y, the s ta te a g en ci es fi l ed m o ti o ns t o qua sh

. The di st r i ctc o ur t d en i ed th o se mot i o ns , a t whi chpo i ntthe sta te age nci es fi l ed thi s a pp eal, i nvoking j uri sdic ti on under the c ol l ate ra l

- or der doct rine. W e co ncl ud e that thi s i s no t a pro per case f orthatbas i s o fj uri sdic ti on, i n light of th e S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in M o h a wk In d u s t r i e s , In c . v. C a rpen ter, 13 0 S. C t. 59 9 (20 09 ). W e ad d th at e v e n if we h a v e r e a d M o ha w kInd ustries to o str i ctl y an d j uri sdic

ti on i s pro pe r, we w oul d find thatthe sta te age nci es’ ar gum ents l ack m er i t.

I O tt serve d 1 3 y ea r s f o r the murde r o fJ es si ca Pa y ne bef or e DN A ev i dence exone ra ted hi m . The S ta te ofW i sconsin d ro pp ed al lchar ges ag ai nst hi m i n 200 9 a fter a W i sco nsi n appell ate co urt hel d that he was enti tl ed to a ne w tr i al

. S hor tl y there after, the M i l w aukee Pol i ce De p a r t me n t a n n o u n c e d th a t i t h a d c o n n e c t e d th e DN A f ound on ni ne vi cti m s, i ncl ud i ng Payne, to W al terE. El l i s. I n l i ght o fthatfi nd i ng and hi s e xoner ati on, O tt fi l ed an acti on under 4 2 U.S
. C. § 1 983 aga i ns t se ve ra lM i l w aukee po l i ce o ffi ce r s an d the C ity o fM i l wauk ee ; he s o ug ht damag es f o r hi s wro ng fulc onv i ct i o n a nd i nc ar ce r at i o n. I n further ance o ftho se cl ai m s, Ott s er ve d subpoenas o n th e W isc on sin C rim e L ab or at or y a n d th e W isc on sin D ep ar tm en t o f C or re c tio n s p u rs u an t t o Fe d er al R u le ofCi vi lPro cedure 45, i n an e ff or t t o ob ta in docum entsN os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638 3

ass oci ate d w i th the DN A te sting o fEl l i s. ( W e no te that these enti ties lie w i thi n 100 m i l es ofthe cour thouse , see F ED . R. C IV . P. 45(b) ( 2) ( B), and so ther e i s no doubt th at th ey w er e p ar t o f th e p en d in g a c tio n .) The sta te age nci es m ove d to quash t he subpoenas , ar guing tha t they a re not“per sons” subj ect to Rule 45 an d tha t Ott’ s s er vi ce b y c er ti fi ed m ai lwas i nv al i d. The dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed that m oti on. The st ate ag enci es th enmove d t o a m en d the c o ur t’ s o r der on the g r o und that they had prese rv ed additi onalsubst anti ve obj ecti ons that they had not pr evi ousl y r ai sed. The dist ric t cour t r ej ecte d the addit i onalar gum en ts as unti m el y, b u t itn e v e rt h ele ss allow ed th e s ta te ag en c ies to su b m it bri ef s o n the questi on wh etherspecia lci rcum sta nces war r an te d a n e xc ept i o n t o wai ve r . Af te r r ev i ewing that subm i ssi on, the co u rt co ncl ud ed that the s tat e age nci es w er e not enti tl ed to an excepti on and i t o rd ered the pr oducti on o fthe subpoenaed m ate ri als . Th e s tat e ag en c ies th en filed th is a p p ea l.

II W e co nsi der fi rs t wh etherthe sta te age nci es’ appeal is p rop erly before th is cou rt. T he state agen cies assert that i t i s, noti ng that thi s cour t has hel d th at nonpart i es m ay d irectly ap p eal adv er s e final discove ry orders bef or e fi nalj ud gm ent i s e nter ed i n the und er lyi ng ca se. Se e D el lwo od Farm s, Inc. v. C argil l, Inc. , 12 8 F
. 3d 1122 , 11 25 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( “W hen the or der i s directed against a nonparty, as i t i s here , [ the nonparty ] h as n o a pp el l ate re med y a t the e nd o f the l i t i g a t i o n, s o he i s e nti t l ed to4 N os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638

a p p e a li mme d i a t e l y . ” )
. Ot tr e s p o n d s th a tth e S u p r e me Cou r t’ s dec i si o n in M o ha w kInd ustries, Inc. v. C a rpen ter, 13 0 S. Ct
. 599 (2009), h a s effectively overruled this cou rt’s posi ti on o n the i ssue. Co l l a t e r a l

- o r d e r r e v i e w i s b a s e d o n a “ p r a c t i c a l ” c o nst r uct i o n o f 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1 ; i t i s n o t a n e x c e p t i o n t o t he fin al-ju d g m e n t ru le. Cohe n v . Be ne f i ci al Indu s . Lo an Corp
. , 33 7 U .S. 54 1, 54 6 (1 94 9); D igi t al E quip. Corp
. v. D e s kt op D irec t, Inc. , 51 1 U.S
. 86 3, 86 7 ( 1994 )
. I m m edi ate fi nal i ty exi sts on l y foro rder s “ that ar e co ncl usi ve, thatr eso l ve i mpo r t a n tqu e s t i o n s c o mpl e t e l y s e p a r a t e fr o m the m er i ts , an d th at woul d r en der su ch i m po r ta nt qu est i o ns effec ti ve l y unr ev i ewabl e o n a ppea lfr o m fi na lj udg m en t i n the und er l yi ng ac ti on. ” Dig i t a l Equ ip. , 51 1 U.S
. at 86 7
. T h e S u p r e me C o u r tr e c e n t l y e mph a s i z e d the na r r o w sc o pe o fth e do ct r i ne i n M o ha w kInd ustries , w he re it h eld th at a c olla te ra l-ord er a p p e a l w as n otav aila b le to review an ord er th a t m a y viol ate th e attorne y - cl i en t p riv i l eg e. The Co ur t dee m ed po stj udg m en t appeal suffi cien t to prot ect the inter est s a sso ci ate d w i th th atpr i vi l eg e. I fa pa r tyis pa r ti cul ar l y c o nc erne d abo ut t urningo v e r p r i v i l e g e d ma t e r i a l s , the Co ur tn o t e d, th ere are othe r al tern atives ava il ab le , suc h as an i nt erl ocuto ryappealunder 28 U
. S. C. § 1 292(b) , a w ri t ofm andam u s , o r a n ap p ea l from a c on te m p t c ita tio n . Id

. a t6 0 8. T h e o v e r r i d i n gl e s s o n fr o m M o ha w kInd u stries i s that “t h e c las s o f co llat er ally ap p ea lab le o r d e rs m u strem ain

‘ narr ow and se l ecti ve i n i ts m em ber shi p. ’ ” Id

. at60 9, quoti ng Wil l v. Hallock, 5 46 U. S
. 345, 350 ( 20 06 )
. The advers el y a ffecte d p ar ty i s e xpected to put i ts m oney w h er e it s m ou th is, so to sp ea k, be for e a n ap p ea l w ill b e h e a r d.N os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638 5 J ust a s a party a sse rt i ng a ttorne y- cl i ent pr i vi l ege is c om p elle d to u se a m et h od oth er th an a c oll a t er alor d er ap p ea l i fi t w an ts to av oid tu rn in g ov er ce rt ain docum ents, so i n ourvi ew m ust th e s tat e a genci es resist th e ir su bp oen a ord ers m ore de fi nitively before thi s co u rtm ay exer ci se j uri sdic ti on. I t m i ght b e e nough that the s tat e a genci es m ay re si st com pli an c e an d ri sk a co nt empt o r der, i fthe y fee ls tr o ng l y tha t a pr ej udg m en t ap p ea l is n ec es sa ry . M ot orol a, Inc . v. Com put e rD i s pl ays Int’ l, Inc. , 7 3 9 F
. 2 d 11 4 9 , 1 1 5 4 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) ( “ An or d er find in g a p ar ty in c ivil c on te m p t d isp os es of all the i ssues r ai sed o nl y if it i ncl ud es both a fi nd i ng o f conte m pt and th e im p ositi on of a sanc tion.”). T h er e i s no r i sk ofan unw ar ra nted i ntrusi on o n st at e so ve r ei g nty as so ci at ed wi th th i s co ur se o factio n; no tabl y, the t wo s ta te a g en ci es he r e were ac tinga s th e ag en ts of th e C ity ’s P olic e D ep ar tm en t, an d O tt ’s s u it ag ain stth e C ity an d its offic er s fa lls c o m for ta b ly w ith in federa lautho ri ty . I t i s wel lundersto od that“co urts h av e in h er en t p ow er to en for c e c om p l i a n c e w ith th eir l aw ful ord er s thro ugh ci vi lco ntem pt. ” Shi l l i t aniv. U nited Sta tes , 3 8 4 U. S
. 3 6 4 , 3 7 0 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ; s e e a l so Young v. Uni te d State s ex r e l
. Vu i t t on e tF i l s , S
. A. , 48 1 U.S
. 78 7, 794 ( 1987 ) ( “[ I ] t i s l ong set tled t hat co urts poss ess i nherentautho ri ty to i ni ti ate co ntem pt proc eedi ngs for disobedi ence to th eir o rder s. ”)
. W e know f ora f act that sta te enti ti es ar e no t unf am i l i arwith t he poss ibi l i ty of conte m pt proc eedi ngs a ri si ng o ut o f t hei r f ai l ure to ob ey fed er al c o u r t ord er s. Bail ey v . Roob , 56 7 F
. 3d 930, 93 7- 38 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( di sc ussing th e po ss ibi l i tyo fc o ntem pt proc eedi ngs a gainst s tat e a gen c y ar i si ng o ut o f6 N os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638

c on se n t d ec re e); P o w er v. Sum m ers , 22 6 F
. 3d 81 5, 81 9 ( 7th Cir
. 20 00) ( concl ud i ng tha t inj uncti on a gainst s tat e m ay be en forced by con tem p t citation). W e fi nd i m m ate ri althe f act that thi s c as e in vol ves a disc ove ryo rderdi re cted atnonpart i es w here as M oh awk Indu s t r ies i nvol ved part i es to the c ase . U nd erthe f acts pr es en te d h ere, th e st at e ag en ci es ’ i nt er es ts i n pr o te ct i ng th eir p rivi lege d m aterials are as strong as th ose of a party
. Ott s eek s d ocum ents cre ate d by the ag enci es and that a re i n thei r posse ssi on. Th er e is no ri sk that th e ag en ci es l ac kthe pro peri nc en ti ve s to pr o te ctthe su bp oen aed m aterials. Th e Sup rem e C ou rt’s conc ern th at “p iec e m e a l, prejud gm en t ap p eals .

. . un d erm ine[]

‘ effi ci ent j ud i ci aladm i ni str ati on’ and encr oac h[] upon the pr er oga ti ves ofd ist rict co urt j ud ges ” a pp l i es w i th eq ua l force to the n o n p arties sub j ect to th e d iscovery or d er s inth is c as e. M o ha w kIn d u s t r ies , 130 S. Ct. at60 5, quoti ng Firesto ne Tire & R ubb er C o . v. Risjo rd, 4 4 9 U
. S. 368, 374 (1981).

III A I fper ch a nc e we h a v e r e a d M o ha w kInd ustries too str i ctl y a nd t h e C ourtm eant to l eave a w i der doo r open for co llat er al-o rd er ap p ea ls b ro u gh t b y n o n p ar tie s, or if the s tat e a ge n c i es m eant to i nvoke so ver ei gn i m m unity thro ugh thei r refer ence to “pers ons, ” we w oul d nonetheless rej ect th eir p ositio n on th e m erits. Th is court re vi ew s a di str i ct c ourt ’ s o rderr efusi ng to quash a sub-N os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638 7 poena forabuse o fdi scr etion
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ll oyd, 71 F
. 3d 12 56 , 1 26 8 (7th Ci r . 1 99 5)
. W e r ev i ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s inter preta ti on o f Rule 45 deno vo . P ick ett v. Sh erida n H eal th C a re C tr. , 610 F. 3d 434, 44 0 (7 th C ir. 2010). R u l e 4 5 e s t ab l i s h e s th e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e f o r i s su i ng subpoenas. Rel evantto this a p p eal, i t r equi re s the subp oen a to “ co m m an d e ac h pe rs on t o wh o m i ti s di r ecte d to do [ cer tain thi ngs]
. ” F ED . R. C IV . P . 45(a )(1) ( A ) ( i ii) ( em phasi s a dd ed). S i m il ar l y, Rule 45 ( c) i s t i tl ed, “Pr otect i ng a Pers on S ubj ect to a S ubpoena. ” The s tat e age nci es ar gue th at they ar e no t “ perso ns” s ubj ect to subpoenas und erR u l e 4 5. The di str i ct c ourtr ej ecte d th ei r ar g um en t, r ely i ng o n th e D. C. Ci r cui t’s r ec en t o pi ni o n o n thi s que st i o n. T h e D .C . C irc u it

— the o nl y c ou rto fappeal s that ha s co ns i der ed th i s i ss ue

— h eld th at a fed er al a ge n c y is a “ p er s o n ” u n d er R u le 4 5. Yous uf v. Sa m ant ar, 45 1 F
. 3d 248 ( D.C. Ci r. 20 06). O verturning a dist ri ct c ourtdeci si on to the c ontr ar y, the cour t o fappeal s ini ti al l y r ej ecte d th e di st rict co ur t’ s us e o fthe pr es um pti o n tha t th e federa lgo ver nm ent i s no t a “per son ” w i thi n Rule 45
. Citing Na rdo ne v . U n ited S ta tes , 302 U .S. 37 9 (1 93 7), it re cal l ed that the g ove rnm ent a t co m m on l aw w as presum ed not to be a st atuto ry“per son” i n two si tu at ions: “( 1) wh er e th e statute, i fnotso l i m i ted, would depri ve the s ove re i gn o fa re cogni zed o r establ i shed prer oga ti ve ti tl e o r i nt er es t, s ucha s a st atut e o fl i m i tati o ns ; a nd (2) w h er e d ee m in g t h e G ov er n m en t a p er so n w ou ld w or k obvi ous absurdi ty as, f orex am p le, the appli cati on8 N os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638 ofa speed l aw to a police m an p ursui ng a cri m i nalo r the dri ver of a fi re engi ne re sponding to an al ar m . ” Yous uf , 415 F.3d at 254 ( intern al quo tations om itted ). Th e cou rt fou n d n eit h er sit u at ion ap p lica b le t o R u le 4 5, p ar tic u lar ly because the federa lgov er nm ent l acks an “ est abl i shed p re ro ga tiv e” to be free from su b p oe n as . Id

. Th e cou rt then w en t o n to co ncl ud e that the te rm “per sons” used el se wher e i n the Fe der alRul es o fCi vi lPr o ce dur e co nte m p lat es th e in c lu sio n of th e g ov er n m en t. Id. at25 5- 56. The que st i o n r emai ns whethe r the ho lding and reason ing of Yousuf m ay b e extended to sta te age nci es. The fi rs t quest i on i s whether Rule 45 i m pli cate s s tat e in ter est s that would t ri gge r a Na rdo ne pr es um pti o n. W e thi nk not: w e can think ofno “es tabl i shed prer oga ti ve” of the W i sco nsi n Cri m e Labo ra tory o r the W i sco n sin Dep ar tm ent o fCor re cti ons that w oul d be i m p er il ed by the a pp l i cati on o fRule 45 to ei thero ne. Ott c oul d have demande d the s ame do cument s byi ssuing a su bpo en a to the c or re ct e m plo yee i n each age ncy, as the age nci es adm i t in thei r bri ef

. N o st ate so ver ei gn i m m unity i ssues ar e t rig ger ed by thi s s ubpoena be cause no ul ti m ate r el i ef i s be i ngs o ug htfr o m the m . In a ddi ti o n, th ere is no re as on to be l i e v e t h at th e a p p lica tio n of R u le 4 5 w ou ld w or k a n “o b vio u s a b su rd ity ,” es p e c ially sin c e O tt co u ld ha v e o b t a i ne d the s a me do c ume nt s wi th a m i nor change i n the add re sse e o fthe subpoena. W i th the Na rdo ne pr es um pti o n o ut o f th e way, the n ext is s u e t o e x am in e is w h et h er th e in te rp re ta tio n u se d in Yousuf f oran a gencyo fth e U ni ted S tat es appli es w i th eq u al for c e t o s ta te ag en c ies . W e h av e p re vio u s ly h eldN os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638 9 that sta tes and sta te agen c ies qual i fy a s “ perso ns” u n d e r t h e o th er civ il p ro c ed u re ru les

. Til l m an v. Ci ty of M ilw a uk ee, 71 5 F
. 2d 354 ( 7th Ci r. 19 83) ( W i sco nsi n age ncy w as a “p erson ” w ithin Fed eral R ule of C ivi l P r o ced ure 1 9 ( a) a s a req u ire d p ar ty ); U nite d State s v. Il li nois , 45 4 F.2d 297 ( 7 t h Cir. 1971) (the State of I ll inois w as a “p erson ” wi th i n F ede r al Rul e o f Ci vi l Pr o ce dur e 14 )
. Th ere is n o re as on to refr ain from ap p l yin g t h e h old in gs in Illin o is a nd Til l m an to Rule 45. The S up re m e Cour t has deter m i ned that w hether a gov er nm ental entity qu al i fi es as a “ perso n” i s dependent on the r ule ’ s “ l egi sl ati ve en vi ro nm ent. ” Sim s v. U nited Sta tes , 3 5 9 U. S
. 1 0 8 , 11 2 ( 1959 )
. A s we have note d, “[ A ] l though a st atute m ay not express l y m enti on S tat es am ong thos e i t in cl ud es, i t m ay beco m e ‘ equal l y c l earthati t doe s not exc lud e th em .’ ” Il li nois , 45 4 F
. 2d at 301, quoting S i ms , 3 59 U. S
. a t 11 2. The hi sto ryand purpo se ofRule 45 i nd i cate s no l egi sl ati ve i nt en t to e xc l ude s ta te s fr o m the s ub p oen a po wero fthe fe de r a l c o ur t s . 9 C C HA RLES A LA N W R I GHTE TAL ., F ED ERAL P RACT I CE AN D P ROCEDURE § 2451 , at 383 ( 3d ed . 2 008). On the r ec o r d b efo r e us , the r efo r e, i t a p p ea r s th atthe st at e ag en ci es a re s ubj ec t to the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s su bpo en a pow erunder Rul e 4 5.

B The sta te age nci es do not dispute t h at theyr ecei ved th e sub p oen as via certified m ail . T he y argue , how ever, that the s ubp oe nas m ust be quashed as a m att ero fl aw because theyr ead Rule 45 ( b) ( 1) to pro hibi t s er vi ce b y ce r ti fi ed m ai l

. I n f ac t, a s a qui cke xa m i na ti o n o fthe l an g u a g e o fth e R u l e r e v e a l s , i t n e v e r s a y s th a t, b u twe10 N os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638 proce ed on the as sum pti on tha t the a genci es re al l y m ean to ar gue foran i m pli ci t ba n on thi s m etho d ofse rv i ce. H er e i s what the Rule say s: A ny per son w ho i s a t l eas t 1 8 yea rs o ld and not a par tymay se r ve a sub po en a. S er vinga s ubpo en a re q u ire s d eliv er in g a c op y to t h e n am ed p er so n an d , i f the s ubpoen a requir es that perso n’s at tendance, te nde r i ngthe fee s f o r 1 da y ’s atte nda nc e an d the m ilea ge allow ed by law

. M any c ourt s have inter prete d thi s l anguage ( and i ts predeces so rs befor e the 20 07 re sty l i ng o fthe rul es) l i ter al ly to r equi re nothi ng sho rto fper sonalse rv i ce. In re D ennis , 3 30 F
. 3d 69 6, 704-05 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 3)
. But th e fi r stque st i o n i s p erson als er vi ce b y who m ? An ag en t ofthe p os tal ser vi ce s urel y qual i fi es as a “ perso n at l eas t 18 ye ar s o f ag e a n d n ota p ar ty .” A n d ce rt ified m ail is a se r vi ce tha t pr o vi des the s en derwi tha mail i ng r e ceip t; th e Post Offi ce also m aintain s a proof-of- d eli very r e c o r d wi th a c o p y o fth e r e c i p i en t’ s s i g n a t u r e f o r t wo yea rs fro m the date o fm ai l i ng. U SPS, Freq u en tl y Asked Qu es tio ns, http: //f aq. usps. com / ( l astvi si ted M ay 23, 2012 )
. W e s ee no r eas on t o i nfl ate the cos ts ofl i ti gat i on by rul i ng out thi s sensibl e opti on f or ser vi ng a s u bpo en a ( al o ngwi ththe ne ce ss ar y fees) a nd r equi r i ng par ti es t o hi r e a se co nd pe r so n fo r serv i ce , a t l ea sti n the abse nce o fa n y l anguage i n the Rule that com pel s s uch a r esul t. Ou r concl usi on i s r ei nfo rce d by a qui ck com pari son of the langu age in Ru le 45(b) (1) w ith th at in R ule 4(e), w hi ch speci fi es var i ous ways i n w hi ch an ind i vi du alN os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638 11

w i thi n a j ud i ci aldi str i c t o fthe U ni ted S tat es m ay be ser ved w i th a sum m on s. Those m etho ds i ncl ud e “ del i ver i ng a cop y of the s um m ons and ofthe com pla i nt to th e in d ivid u al personally .” F ED . R. C IV . P
. 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( e mpha sis a dd ed). Ott per suasi vel y a rgues that the use of the word “per sonal l y” i n that part of Ru l e 4 would be “pure s urpl usage ” i fRule 45 ( b) were in ter prete d to re quir e per sonal del i ver y by a speci al l y desi gnate d agent.

C The sta te age nci es’ fi nalar gum ent i s th at the di str ict co u rterr ed in fin d in g t h at th ey w a i v ed all substa nti ve obj ecti ons to t h e s ubpoenas. They no te that thei r m oti on t o quash i ncl ud ed an expre ss re ser vation o fthe rig htt o a ss er t su bs ta nt i ve o bj ec ti o ns i fthe m otion fai led on proc ed ura l grou nd s. T he district cou rt f ound the o bj ecti ons unti m el y. The st ate ag encies com pla i n that thi s w as i m proper, despit e the f act that the di str i ct c ou rt had al re ady gr anted the m addit i onal ti m e. The questi on f orus i s whether a cur sory r ese rv ation of th e rig h t t o a s s er t s u b st an tiv e o bj ec tio n s la te r is s u ffici ent to prese rv e thos e ar gum ents. Cri ti cal l y, the state ag en c ies ev en n ow h a v e n otrev ea led w h at sp ec ific “subst anti ve obj ecti ons” they ar e t al ki ng ab out. I fthey ar e r efer ring to pri vi l ege ar gum ents, theyar e to o l ate : Rule 45( d)(2 ) s ays that“[ a] per son w i thhol ding subpoenaed i nfo rm ati on under a cl aim that i t i s pri vi l ege d or subj ect to prot ecti on a s t ri al

- prepar ati on m ate ri alm ust express l y m ake the cl ai m ; and descr ibe the natur e o f th e wi th h e l d d o c u me n t s . . . i n a ma n n e r th a t, wi th o ut12 N os. 11

- 1541 & 11

- 1638

r e v e a l i ngi nfo r mat i o n i tse l fp r i v i l e g e d o r p r o t e c t e d, w i l l enabl e the parti es to ass ess the cl ai m . ” Th e stat e ag en c ies ’ br ief a n d br oa d re s e r va tio n of righ ts is in su fficien t to satisfy th is r eq uirem en t. E ven i f th ey are re fer ring to o thera rg u m ents, the dist ri ct c ourtwas en ti tl ed to dr aw the l i ne w he r e i t di d. The S ec o nd Ci r cui t ha s no te d tha t Rule 45 “r equi r e[ s] the r ec i pi en t ofa subpoena t o ra i se al lob j ec tio n s a t o nce, r atherthan i n s t a g g e r e d b a t c he s , s o th a td i s c o v e r y d o e s n o tb e c o me a ‘ gam e. ’ ” In reD G Acq ui s i t i on Corp
. , 15 1 F
. 3d 75, 81 ( 2d Cir
. 19 98) , quoting U ni t e d State s v. Bryan , 33 9 U.S
. 32 3, 33 1 ( 19 50 )
. Thati s why Rul e 45 ( c) ( 2) ( B) r equi r es the obj ecting par ty to ra i se i ts obj ecti on b efo re “the ea rl i er ofthe tim e s peci fi ed f orco m pli ance o r 14 days a fter the s ubpoena i s s er ved. ” The s tat e a genci es have not offe re d an y re a s o n f or failin g t o s p ell ou t a ll of th eir o bj ec ti o ns i n the i r i ni ti alo r a m en ded m o ti o n t o qua sh

.
IV W e co nc l ude tha t we l ac kj uri sd ictio n t o r ul e o n the state agen cies’ app eal. M oreover, even if M oh awk Ind ustries o r a n o th e r th e o r y wo u l d p e r mi tth e ap p e a l, we w oul d find thatthe sta te age nci es’ ar gum ents l ack m er i t. W e there f or e D ISMISSthe ap p ea l for w ant o fj uri sdi ct i o n.

5- 29- 12