1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

ACKERMAN MCQUEEN, INC.,

MERCURY GROUP, INC., HENRY

MARTIN, WILLIAM WINKLER,

MELANIE MONTGOMERY, AND

JESSE GREENBERG, 

 Movants

v.

NATIONAL RIFLE ASOCIATION OF 

AMERICA AND WAYNE LAPIERRE,

 Respondents

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. A-20-MC-149-LY

O R D E R

Before the Court are Movants’ Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoena, filed February 7, 2020 

(Dkt. No. 1); Respondent National Rifle Associations of America’s Opposition to Movants’ 

Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoena, filed February 14, 2020 (Dkt. No. 4); and Movants’ Reply 

in Support of Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoena, filed February 21, 2020 (Dkt. No. 5). On 

February 10, 2020, the District Court referred the Motion to Quash to the undersigned for 

resolution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c)

of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Texas.

I. General Background

On August 30, 2019, the National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) filed this lawsuit in 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against its longtime public 

relations firm, Ackerman McQueen, Inc. (“AMc”), alleging fraud, breach of contract, breach of 

fiduciary duties, copyright infringement, false association under the Lanham Act, and conspiracy. 

Case 1:20-mc-00149-LY Document 6 Filed 02/26/20 Page 1 of 5
2

See NRA v. Ackerman McQueen, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-2074-G (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2019).1In 

addition to AMc, the NRA also named as defendants Mercury Group, Inc., a subsidiary of AMc, 

and AMc employees Henry Martin, William Winkler, Melanie Montgomery, and Jesse Greenberg

(collectively, “Movants”). 

On January 24, 2020, the NRA subpoenaed non-party Six Flags Entertainment Corporation 

(“Six Flags”) to produce the following documents, not limited to any particular time period:

1. Documents that relate to the scope of work and/or services 

provided to You by Ackerman McQueen, Inc. (“AMc”) or 

Mercury Group, Inc. (“Mercury”), including, but not limited to, 

identifying all AMc employees, officers, directors, or agents 

providing such services.

2. Documents concerning the Digital Media programming and 

content or platform that AMc provided to You, including but not 

limited to, any Viewership Analytics provided by AMc and 

documents concerning how AMc created or otherwise generated 

the Viewership Analytics.

3. Documents concerning forecasts, predictions, or estimates 

provided to You by AMc concerning the Digital Media and 

content or platform.

4. Documents concerning the actual performance or success of the 

Digital Media content and platform.

5. Budgets for services provided or to be provided by AMc or 

Mercury to You, that were prepared by You, AMc, or Mercury 

concerning the Digital Media content and platform.

6. Documents that relate to the amount of money spent by You on 

the Digital Media content and platform.

7. Bills, invoices, and other requests for payment You received 

from AMc or Mercury concerning Digital Media content and 

platform.

8. Documents reflecting any concerns about or requests to AMc for 

information on Six Flags Live or Your Digital Media content 

and platform, including but not limited to, documents 

concerning AMc’s response.

1 The NRA has filed three additional cases against AMc in Virginia that raise the same claims. See Dkt. No. 

1 at p. 2.

Case 1:20-mc-00149-LY Document 6 Filed 02/26/20 Page 2 of 5
3

9. Documents and communications, prepared by You, AMc, or 

Mercury, that refer or relate to the following projects: Six Flags 

Live.

Dkt. No. 1-1 at p. 2-3. 

On February 7, 2020, Movants filed the instant Motion to Quash the Third-Party Subpoena 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iv) and 45(d)(3)(B), arguing that the 

Subpoena is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant and confidential information.

Alternatively, Movants asks the Court to transfer the Motion to Quash to the Northern District of 

Texas, where the underlying action is pending, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f).

In response, the NRA maintains that the Court should deny the Motion to Quash because the 

Subpoena seeks relevant discoverable information. The NRA also agrees with Movants, however,

that the Motion to Quash should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas, where the 

underlying litigation is pending. See Dkt. No. 4 at p. 3. The Court agrees.

II. Analysis

Rule 45(f) governs transfer of a subpoena-related motion. Rule 45 has long required that 

disputes related to non-party subpoenas be resolved locally “to avoid imposing undue travel or 

expense burdens on non-parties who are challenging a subpoena.” Visionworks of Am., Inc. v. 

Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., 2017 WL 1611915, at *1-3 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017) 

(citing FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i), directing that motions to compel be filed in “the district in 

which compliance is required”). Subsection (f) was added in December 2013 to allow the transfer 

of such motions to the court that issued the subpoena “if the person subject to the subpoena 

consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances” to be present. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(f). 

Although the term “exceptional circumstances” is not defined in the Rules, the Advisory 

Committee’s comments to the amendment explain that “transfer to the court where the action is 

pending is sometimes warranted” where the interests in having the issuing court decide the 

Case 1:20-mc-00149-LY Document 6 Filed 02/26/20 Page 3 of 5
4

discovery dispute “outweigh the interests of the party served with the subpoena in obtaining local 

resolution of the motion.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45 advisory committee’s notes to 2013 amendment, 

Subdivision (f). The Committee further notes that “transfer may be warranted in order to avoid 

disrupting the issuing court’s 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.” Id.

In the interests of consistency and judicial economy, the Court finds that the Northern District 

of Texas should rule on the instant Motion to Quash. As both parties agree, “[t]he Northern District 

of Texas has the greatest familiarity with the nature of the case.” Dkt. No. 4 at p. 3. In addition to 

other pending motions, a motion to compel raising issues similar to the instant Motion to Quash is 

currently pending before the Northern District of Texas. A protective order also is in place in the 

underlying litigation. 

The Northern District of Texas is in the best position to make rulings on the scope of discovery 

and to evaluate the relevance of the requested documents and any undue burden the production 

might cause. Given the protective order and the similar discovery disputes currently pending 

before the Northern District of Texas, any ruling by this Court has the potential to disrupt the 

Northern District’s management of the underlying case, both procedurally and substantively. “A 

transfer will ‘avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation,’ and 

enable resolution of fundamental issues underlying this matter.” In re Nonparty Subpoenas Duces 

Tecum, 327 F.R.D. 23, 26 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 45(f) advisory committee’s 

notes). In addition, “[u]niformity of discovery rulings . . . is critical to achieving fairness to the 

parties and non-parties.” Visionworks of Am., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., 2017 

WL 1611915, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017).

Case 1:20-mc-00149-LY Document 6 Filed 02/26/20 Page 4 of 5
5

In sum, the transfer of the Motion to Quash will advance the interests of consistency and 

judicial economy in this case.

Based on the foregoing, Movants’ Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoena (Dkt. No. 1) is 

GRANTED IN PART. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movants’ Motion to Quash Third Party 

Subpoena is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Texas, Dallas Division. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause of action is CLOSED.

SIGNED on February 26, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-mc-00149-LY Document 6 Filed 02/26/20 Page 5 of 5