A Nevada Court Cannot Enforce a California Subpoena

Yes, apparently we needed the Supreme Court of Nevada to decide that question.   Sigh.

Quinn v. Dist Ct. arose from a rather long story.^[1]  The condensed version of my understanding of the case is that Elaine & Steve Wynn were married and later divorced in 2010.  A lawsuit then arose about whether an agreement between them from the divorce prevented Elaine from transferring company stock without Steve’s permission.  Elaine was represented by lawyers from Quinn Emanuel.  The firm was disqualified from the case because it allegedly downloaded proprietary company information from Elaine’s laptop.  Regardless, the underlying lawsuit went on, apparently without Quinn Emanuel.

Later in the case, Wynn Resorts’ general counsel filed an abuse of process counterclaim against Elaine.  The GC then “caused deposition subpoenas to be issued in California directing [four] Quinn Emanuel attorneys to appear for deposition in California in late October.”  To my complete surprise, The attorneys objected to the subpoenas and moved to quash the subpoenas on a variety of grounds.  The California superior court then declined to decide a motion to compel the depositions on short notice, which the GC filed presumably because of the discovery deadline in the Nevada case.

The GC then filed a motion in the Nevada district court to compel the depositions.  The GC argued appearing pro hac vice created personal jurisdiction.  The district court granted the motion.  A writ petition followed and was granted.

The GC had issued subpoenas in California to obtain the deposition.  A Nevada district court has no jurisdiction to decide the enforceability of a California subpoena.  Instead, the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act stated any disputed about the enforceability of the California subpoena was to be resolved by a California court using California law.  The Nevada district court had no power to intervene.

The GC alternatively argued that, regardless of the subpoenas, the Nevada district court had properly exercised its inherent authority to order the Quinn Emanuel to appear for deposition.  This argument failed too.  There was no Nevada subpoena or deposition notice issued to Quinn Emanuel.  Second, the district court had no jurisdiction in California where the Quinn Emanuel lawyers were located.  Third, merely being “admitted pro hac vice in the Nevada action would not confer on the Nevada district courts the power to require them to appear for deposition as nonparty witnesses.”  Finally, the district court was not regulating the conduct of those before it; it was compelling a deposition of non-party witnesses.^[2]

[1] 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (2018)
[2] In the meantime, the California court refused to enforce the subpoena and sanctioned the GC $10,000.