UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Tanja Gavrilovic

v. Civil No. 05-mc-034-JM

Worldwide Language Resources, Inc. and

REEP

O R D E R

 Defendant, Worldwide Language Resources, Inc. (hereinafter

“Worldwide”) moves to compel production of documents which it

sought by subpoena from Russian and East European Partners, Inc.

(hereinafter “REEP”). 

Background

Worldwide issued a subpoena duces tecum on June 30, 2005. 

On July 6, 2005, the subpoena was served on REEP’s resident agent

for service of process. The subpoena sought twenty-eight

categories of documents to be produced on July 20, 2005. REEP

did not comply on July 20th, did not seek a protective order

within fourteen days of service, nor did it provide a written

objection to providing any or all of the designated materials. 

By letter of July 20, 2005 the resident agent, a lawyer,

wrote defense counsel advising him that he thought the subpoena

Case 1:05-cv-00428-PB Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 4
1REEP has not pursued this claim recognizing, as it should,

that under New Hampshire law service of a subpoena on the

resident agent is appropriate and proper. 

2

was defectively served1 but he was not representing REEP in any

pending litigation. By August 16, 2005, counsel for REEP was in

contact with defense counsel concerning the subpoena. 

One month late general objections were advanced that the

requests were in some instances overly broad and burdensome, some

lacked relevance, some sought confidential information and some

were privileged. None of the objections were specific to any

request and no privilege log was produced. In fact, no privilege

log has ever been produced. 

Counsel for REEP did promise production of documents

responsive to paragraphs 3, 4, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22 and part of 28. 

However, no documents had been produced as of the date of the

motion. The first complete written response to the subpoena came

in the form of the objection to the motion. 

A third party subpoenaed under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure has essentially three choices: (1) comply; (2) object

within fourteen days; or (3) move to quash or modify the

subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c). REEP has done none of the

three. 

Case 1:05-cv-00428-PB Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 4
2In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 576 (1st Cir.

2001) makes clear that “Rule 45(d)(2) . . . require(s) a party

who asserts a claim of privilege to . . . describe the materials

to which his claim adheres.”

3

 Failure to serve written objections to a

subpoena within the time specified by Rule 45

typically constitutes a waiver of the

objections . . . (It) may not constitute a

waiver of the objections if the court finds

there are unusual circumstances and good

cause for the failure. 

9 JAMES WM. MOORE, ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 45.04[2] (3d ed.

2004). REEP has not shown good cause for its excessively tardy

objections nor has it shown any unusual circumstances. While

some of its belated objections may have had merit were they

timely advanced, they are simply too late and too little. There

is no privilege log2 of any kind and the relevance and burdensome

objections are, at this juncture, simply a further effort to

delay. 

The motion to compel is granted. REEP and its corporate

officers are ordered to comply with the subpoena in full within

ten (10) days or be in contempt of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e). 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00428-PB Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 3 of 4
4

Date: November 8, 2005

cc: Robert E. McDaniel, Esq.

 Jeffrey A. Meyers, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00428-PB Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 4 of 4