Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main Holding GmbH v. RWE Trading Americas Inc.

The district court quashed a subpoena after concluding that the subpoena’s target conducted a reasonable search and did not have any responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. Yet, the evidence shows that the subpoena target conducted no search at all for documents and that at least one responsive document was known by the subpoena target to exist. Did the district court apply the wrong standard in concluding that the subpoena target’s search was adequate and, thus, abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoena?

The district court quashed a subpoena because the subpoena’s target did not have any responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. Yet, the subpoena target never established that it could not have obtained responsive documents by asking for them from a corporate affiliate that indisputably did have at least one responsive document. Did the district court apply the wrong standard for determining whether a document is in an entity’s possession, custody, or control and, thus, abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoena?