In re Maryland/Delaware, Inc.

1

In re Subpoena to BAPTIST CONVENTION OF MARYLAND/DELAWARE, INC., and BILL WARREN.

Civil Action No. 23-mc-10-CJN-MAU

United States District Court, District of Columbia

February 23, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MOXILA A. UPADHYAYA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case relates to litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. In that case, Plaintiff Will McRaney (“McRaney”) sued the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc. (“NAMB”) for, among other things, defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See McRaney v. N. Am. Mission Bd. Of the S Baptist Convention, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00080-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss.). Counts I and II of McRaney's lawsuit stem from his allegations that NAMB interfered with McRaney's relationship with his former employer, the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware, Inc. (“BCMD”), and that NAMB tortiously caused BCMD to ask for McRaney's resignation. ECF No. 4 at 1.

In discovery, NAMB served two Rule 45 subpoenas on BCMD, seeking information to bolster its defense to McRaney's suit: 1) a subpoena duces tecum seeking the production of certain documents related to McRaney's employment and the circumstances of his separation from BCMD; and 2) a subpoena for a deposition of former BCMD board member Pastor Bill Warren (“Warren”). ECF No. 1 at Exs. A and B. Although the case is pending in the Northern District of Mississippi, this District is the compliance district for both subpoenas.

Non-party BCMD brings two motions related to the subpoenas that NAMB served on it: 1) a motion to quash the subpoenas based upon the First Amendment ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention doctrines (ECF No. 1); and 2) a motion to transfer the motion to quash to the Northern District of Mississippi (ECF No. 2).

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(f), “[w]hen the court where compliance is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances.” Because “the prime concern” of Rule 45 when considering a motion to transfer “should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas,” consent of the non-party mitigates that concern. See Fed.R.Civ.P 45, advisory comm. notes, 2013 amend., subdiv. (f); see e.g., In re Braden, 344 F.Supp.3d 83, 90 (D.D.C. 2018) (transferring a motion to quash based on the non-party's consent and noting that the “prime concern” involving non-party subpoenas is the burden on that non-party); Bogard Constr. Inc. v. Oil Price Info Serv. LLC, 2022 WL 1213307, at *3 (D. Md. Apr. 25, 2022) (“[T]he rule plainly affords the nonparty a modicum of choice; the nonparty may either litigate the motion in the compliance district or consent to litigation in the issuing district and seek transfer.”).

Here BCMD not only consents, but affirmatively requests that the Court transfer its motion to quash to the court handling the underlying litigation. None of the other relevant parties to the subpoena dispute oppose the request. ECF No. 2 at 4 (noting NAMB and Warren do not oppose transfer). The Court notes that many of the same issues that BCMD raises have been or will be raised in the underlying case. As NAMB argues, it intends to raise the same substantive defenses- the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the...