UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen Cook

v. Civil No. 06-cv-058-JD

CTC Communications Corp.

O R D E R

 Plaintiff moves to quash defendant’s subpoena duces tecum on

its expert and defendant seeks to compel compliance and to hold

the expert in contempt. This unseemly squabble was, and is,

unnecessary. 

Background

New Hampshire practitioners generally depose experts by

agreement and negotiate reasonable document production and terms

of payment for the expert. Although a member of the New

Hampshire Bar, defense counsel, marching to a different tune,

served a subpoena duces tecum on the expert. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45

certainly gives her that option. 

Rather than resort to the formal procedures of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 45(c)(2)(B), the expert had plaintiff’s counsel attempt to

amicably negotiate reasonable time and relevance limitations on

Case 1:06-cv-00058-JD Document 45 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 4
2

the several document requests, some of which were overly broad

and some of which called for irrelevant material. While some

progress was made by the parties in narrowing the requests, there

remain unresolved issues as to certain document categories. 

Because the expert is a sole practitioner who works out of

her home and has no regular staff, the enormous time to comply

with the subpoena falls upon the expert. Plaintiff’s efforts to

assure that the experts would be paid for her efforts led to this

dispute. Defense counsel objects to paying regular attorney

hourly rates for the expert to cull documents on and off her

computer, do redactions and/or copy. Plaintiff’s counsel

maintains that defense counsel must either agree to pay the

expert’s charges or there will be no compliance with the

subpoena. 

Discussion

The subpoena is overbroad and is subject to being quashed or

modified. Plaintiff’s counsel objected on the expert’s behalf in

a timely fashion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). Defense

counsel has filed her motion to compel under that rule. I grant

the motion to compel and the motion for protective order as

follows: 

Case 1:06-cv-00058-JD Document 45 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 4
3

1. Request #2 is limited to courses or seminars

concerning investigation practices over the last 4 years; 

2. Request #3 is limited to documents regarding

investigation practices over the last 4 years (excluding

materials Ms. Moore gave as an attorney to a client); 

3. Power-point presentations are excluded from

Request #4; 

4. Request #11 is limited to expert testimony

regarding investigations; 

5. Request #12 is limited to expert reports regarding

investigations; and 

6. Defendant is ordered to compensate Ms. Moore at

her regular rate of $225 per hour for all location,

collating and reviewing of documents. I find her rate

reasonable for those efforts. Plaintiff’s counsel is to do

all copying at her standard copy charge rate. 

7. No counsel fees to either party. 

Case 1:06-cv-00058-JD Document 45 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 4
4

The motions (document nos. 31 and 37) are granted as set

forth above and are otherwise denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 7, 2007

cc: Samantha C. Halem, Esq.

 Lauren S. Irwin, Esq.

 Mary L. Marshall, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00058-JD Document 45 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 4