Summary
This document is an email correspondence concerning a discovery dispute in federal litigation, involving a Rule 45 subpoena seeking a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the Nebraska Department of Economic Development. The State asserts sovereign immunity and requests that the subpoena be quashed, while the court provides procedures for submitting position statements, conferring, and scheduling a potential discovery hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Key quotations
“prevent[s] the indignity of subjecting a state to the coercive process of tribunals at the instance of third parties.” (Ex parte Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 505 (1887))
“third party subpoenas...command a government unit to appear in federal court and obey whatever judicial discovery commands may be forthcoming.” (Alltel Communications, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1103 (8th Cir. 2012))
Factual background
NDED received a Rule 45 subpoena for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition scheduled for November 18, 2025. NDED had previously been dismissed from the action and asserted that sovereign immunity protected it from third-party discovery. The provided material consists of counsel emails and does not establish whether the subpoena was quashed or whether the court adopted NDED's position.
Procedural history
NDED was dismissed as a party by a memorandum and order dated August 19, 2024, identified as Filing 10. After dismissal, the plaintiff served or attempted to serve NDED with a subpoena for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and NDED objected on sovereign-immunity grounds. Court staff directed the parties to submit position statements and meet and confer before seeking a discovery-dispute hearing.