United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
GREENWOOD LEFLORE HOSPITAL, DR. ASA BENNETT, DR. BRUCE NEWELL, DR. CRAIG CLARK, AND DR. RAVI PANDE MOVANTS
TIMOTHY G. O'BRYANT RESPONDENT IN RE: TIMOTHY G. O'BRYANT PLAINTIFF
GRAY INSURANCE COMPANY, ENI U.S. OPERATING CO., LONGNECKER, ET AL DEFENDANTS Civil Action No. 2016-CV-13203 United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
M. VIRDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Sanctions- supplementing the  Emergency Motion to Quash
Subpoenas. There were ample problems with the subpoenas at
issue here- they are thoroughly delineated in the emergency
motion to quash. The most disturbing of the litter will be
discussed below. Having considered the motion, and
corresponding briefing, the Court finds that it is well taken
and should be GRANTED.
was a personal injury action, O'Bryant v. Gray Ins.
Co., No. 16-13203, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166592 (E.D.
La. 2017), brought before the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Plaintiff's attorney in that action, Louis Koerner Jr.,
who is not licensed to practice law in the Northern District
of Mississippi federal courts, procured from the clerk of
this court a number (at least 6) of the Administrative
Office-approved form of subpoenas to appear and testify at a
hearing or trial in the United States District Court of
Mississippi. According to the subpoenas, as prepared by Mr.
Koerner, a number of physicians who reside in Greenwood MS
were commanded by this court to “Appear and Testify at
a Hearing or Trial in a Civil Action” at Courtroom No.
329 in Greenville, Mississippi at 9:00 a.m. on October 23,
2017. However, no trial or hearing or other matter had ever
been scheduled in Courtroom 329 at 9:00 a.m. on October 23,
notice of the subpoenas, defense counsel properly filed a
miscellaneous motion with this Court, the Court of the place
of asserted compliance, and moved to quash the subpoenas and
requested attorney's fees. After consideration of the
motion, the Court granted the emergency motion to quash and
set the matter for a hearing to determine appropriate
sanctions. Upon notice of the hearing, Mr. Koerner replied to
this Court by email stating, “The case has settled. The
matters are moot. Thank you for your help.” The Court
promptly informed Mr. Koerner that the matter would be taken
up as noticed, his appearance was, in fact, required, and
that his failure to attend would result in further sanctions.
Defense counsel submitted a supplemental motion for sanctions
prior to the hearing. Mr. Koerner submitting briefing before
and after the hearing.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45:
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena;
Enforcement. (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or
Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable
steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a
person subject to the subpoena. The court for the
district where compliance is required must enforce this duty
and impose an appropriate sanction-which may include
lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees-on a party
or attorney who fails to comply.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)(emphasis added).
attorney, submitted the subpoenas at issue- and himself-to
the jurisdiction of this Court, when he, without any
authority to do so, issued subpoenas from this court to
appear in this court for a trial in a case pending in
Louisiana. Therefore, the matter is properly before this
Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2) provides, “[A]
subpoena must issue from the court where the action
is pending.” There are no actions pending in
this District involving the parties, the case number, or
attorneys associated with the subpoenas.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3) provides, “The
clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank,
to a party who requests it. That party must complete it
before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a
subpoena if the attorney is authorized to practice in
the issuing court.” (emphasis added). The
subpoenas at issue here bear the signature of, and therefore
were issued by, Attorney Koerner. However, Mr. Koerner is not
authorized to practice law in the in the Northern District of
short, as is plain from the Rule, Mr. Koerner had absolutely
no colorable basis for the issuance of the subject subpoenas.
Furthermore, the arguments advanced by Mr. Koerner to support
the issuance of the subpoenas are so ill founded such that
they are also not colorable. Indeed, the fact that Mr.
Koerner continues to advance such meritless arguments to
support the issuance of the subpoenas is ...