Motions to Reconsider Federal Subpoenas After Initial Court Denial

Motions to Reconsider Federal Subpoenas After Initial Court Denial

Federal subpoenas are powerful investigative tools used by the government to obtain documents and testimony. But courts don’t automatically approve every subpoena request. When a court denies a federal subpoena, the party seeking the subpoena has limited options. One way to potentially overcome an initial denial is to file a motion for reconsideration. This article examines motions to reconsider subpoena denials, key strategies, and factors courts weigh in deciding these motions.

Overview of Federal Subpoenas

Federal subpoenas are issued under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[1]. They compel recipients to produce documents, electronically stored information, or other evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. Federal agencies like the SEC, FTC, and DOJ use subpoenas to gather evidence in investigations and lawsuits.

Subpoenas are enforceable by contempt of court if recipients fail to comply. But courts won’t approve subpoenas that are overbroad, irrelevant, or abusive. Parties seeking subpoenas must make reasonable efforts to avoid undue burden and expense to the recipient[1].

Why Courts Deny Subpoena Requests

There are several reasons a federal court may deny a subpoena request[1]:

• Overly broad scope
• Seeks irrelevant information
• Unreasonable burden on recipient
• Privileged information
• Violates privacy rights
• Request made in bad faith

For example, a court may find that a subpoena seeking 10 years of a company’s emails is too broad. Or that medical records requested are not really relevant to the investigation. When a subpoena request is denied, the party has a few options to potentially get it approved.

Motion for Reconsideration

One way to respond to a federal subpoena denial is to file a motion for reconsideration. This asks the court to rethink its initial ruling denying the subpoena[2]. In the motion, the subpoena seeker explains why they believe the court made a mistake and should reverse its decision.

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Rule 59(e) or 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[3]. They must be filed within a limited time, usually 28 days after the denial order. The motion targets alleged errors in the court’s reasoning or facts to show the ruling was mistaken.

Grounds for Reconsideration

Parties cannot simply rehash the same arguments already rejected by the court. Instead, reconsideration motions typically rely on one of these grounds[4]:

• Manifest errors of law or fact
• Newly discovered evidence
• Intervening change in controlling law
• Need to prevent manifest injustice

For example, a motion may assert the court was clearly wrong about the relevance of the requested documents. Or that new evidence proves the subpoena is now warranted. The key is giving the court a compelling reason to reverse its initial denial.

Strategies in Motions to Reconsider

There are several key strategies parties use when filing motions to reconsider federal subpoena denials[5]:

• Clearly demonstrate the court’s mistake or misapplication of law/facts
• Cite persuasive authority like statutes, regulations, or case law
• Emphasize any unfair prejudice from the denial
• Request oral argument if needed to fully address complex issues
• Offer reasonable modifications to the subpoena’s scope or terms

Strong motions also explain why alternatives like interviews or depositions are insufficient. They demonstrate a good faith need for the requested documents or testimony.

Opposing a Reconsideration Motion

The party who prevailed in the initial subpoena denial has a chance to oppose the reconsideration motion. Their response may argue[4]:

• The motion is procedurally defective
• It raises no new facts or law
• The court’s reasoning was sound
• Modifications to the subpoena are still improper

Opposing parties often emphasize the high burden on subpoena seekers to justify reconsideration. They also may file cross-motions to further limit the subpoena’s scope.

Court Discretion on Reconsideration

Federal judges have broad discretion in deciding motions to reconsider subpoena denials. Some factors they may weigh include[3]:

• Whether clear error or manifest injustice occurred
• If the motion raises new evidence or law
• The burden on subpoena recipients
• The relevance of requested information
• Parties’ good faith efforts to resolve disputes

Judges must balance interests of the party seeking information against burdens on subpoena recipients. They may approve narrower subpoenas or impose additional terms to protect sensitive data.

Appealing a Reconsideration Denial

If a motion to reconsider is denied, parties may be able to file an appeal with a federal circuit court of appeals. However, the bar is high. Courts rarely overturn a lower court’s discretionary decisions about subpoenas[6]. Parties may first need to get a contempt order for failing to comply with the subpoena.

An appeals court will mainly consider whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying the subpoena. But it generally defers to the original judge’s weighing of relevant factors.

Even if the appeals court disagrees with how the lower court weighed the factors, it will be hesitant to substitute its own judgment. The original judge had the benefit of hearing arguments and testimony firsthand. This allows them to better assess things like witness credibility and the parties’ good faith efforts.

The appeals court will not simply redo the balancing test from scratch. Rather, it looks for clear abuses of discretion or outright legal errors by the lower court. As long as the original judge used the proper legal standards and considered relevant factors, their decision will likely stand.

However, appeals courts may overturn subpoena denials if the lower court made a clear mistake on a substantive issue. For example, relying on factors not permitted under Rule 45 or misinterpreting a key precedent. But the bar is high given the discretion afforded to trial judges.

Even after losing on reconsideration and appeal, parties may still have options. They could pursue a narrowed subpoena or use alternatives like depositions. But repeated court losses make getting the desired information tougher. At some point, parties may need to reevaluate their subpoena strategy.

In sum, while appeals are possible, the original trial judge’s weighing of factors rarely gets overturned. Parties should build the strongest case possible early on rather than hoping to fix flaws later. Thoroughly addressing the court’s concerns in a reconsideration motion is usually a better path than relying on appeals.