We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
President Barack Obama talks with President Vladimir Putin of Russia during a phone call in the Oval Office, July 12, 2013.
Things to Do
Pittsburgh has been named one of the best places in the world to visit, over and over again.
We invite you to come and find out why! There are so many fun, family-oriented attractions that it will take you several trips to experience them all. If you're a history buff, you can step back into the past at one of the region's many history museums. If your passion is visual or performing arts (or both!) you will be astounded by the amount of theaters, galleries, museums and public art installations in our city. And you can't forget The Andy Warhol Museum, home to the largest collection of Warhol art and archives in the world.
There are so many ways to tour and sightsee around the city of Pittsburgh. You can take a tour by bike, trolley, boat, bus or Segway, or go old fashioned and explore on your own two feet. Learn about the culture of Pittsburgh though food, shopping, and exploring the 90+ neighborhoods that make up our city. If you're a sports fan, you will love the City of Champions. Pittsburgh is home to three professional teams (the Steelers, Penguins, and Pirates) as well as numerous NCAA® Division I and II sports teams, and you will never find more devoted fans than Pittsburghers!
It's easy to mix and match all your interests to create your very own way to experience Pittsburgh!
Maple Way/You Bet Road Improvement (03-Nev-174, PM 2.7/4.6)
In September 2016, Caltrans published an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding this project. The project proposes to improve safety along Route 174 in Nevada County from Maple Way to You Bet Road, post mile 2.74 to 4.63 by realigning and widening the highway and providing a clear recovery zone. The project is located approximately 5.7 miles southeast of Grass Valley. Caltrans notes that this 1.9 mile segment of roadway experienced a total of 30 collisions during the three year period from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2013, and that the observed total accident rate is almost 1.65 times higher than the statewide average for a similar type facility and the observed fatal accident rate is 7 times higher than the statewide average for a similar type facility. They state that the proposed project will increase curve radii, widen shoulders, and improve the clear recovery area. This will provide several benefits to traveler safety. First and foremost, the increased curve radii will reduce the potential for a vehicle to lose control. The wider shoulders will not only provide more room for pedestrians and bicycles to travel the corridor, but they also provide room for an errant vehicle to regain control without leaving the roadway. The removal of fixed objects such as trees and embankments from the clear recovery area will reduce the severity of a run off road collision. Lastly, the improved curve radii, wider shoulders, and removal of fixed objects along with roadway will improve sight distances for roadway users, which will allow more time to identify and react to potential hazards along the highway. They only presented a single build alternative and a no-built alternative.
(Source: Nevada 174 Highway Realignment, Nevada County 03-NEV-174-PM: 2.7-4.6 Initial Study with a Mitigated Negative Declaration, September 2016)
In December 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project that will realign the roadway, widen shoulders, and add a recovery zone on Route 174 near the city of Grass Valley (03-Nev-174, PM 2.7/4.6). The project is programmed in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total programmed amount is $28,456,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2017-18. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program.
In May 2017, it was reported that Caltrans had started to hold public meetings to present information for a project that proposes to improve safety along Route 174 in Nevada County from Maple Way to Your Bet Road. the project would include realigning curves, widening shoulders, adding a left-turn lane at Greenhorn Access Road and improving the Clear Recovery Zone (CRZ) on Route 174 from post mile 2.7 to post mile 4.6 in Nevada County. This project proposed to help reduce the number and severity of collisions within this segment of Route 174. This project is scheduled to go to construction during the summer of 2019.
(Source: Yubanet, 5/22/2017)
In June 2017, it was reported that Caltrans has completed initial environmental review and design processes for road improvements along the two miles of Route 174 between Maple Way and You Bet Road, which were revised after public input was provided at open house events in May 2015 and June 2016, and it plans to begin the process of acquiring any parcels or portions of parcels that will be impacted by the project this summer. Those improvements include realigning several curves and widening lanes— which currently range from 11 to 11.3 feet wide — to the state standard of 12 feet wide. Caltrans also plans to widen shoulders — which currently range from one inch to five and a half feet — to 8 feet, and add 20 feet of "clear recovery zone" beyond the lane on each side of the highway, which includes the eight foot shoulder and an additional 12 feet of area clear of any trees, poles, or other obstructions. Currently, Caltrans has identified 49 parcels that will be impacted, and will send out letters to the owners of those properties notifying them of the impact within the next few months. Construction is slated to begin during the summer of 2019 and be completed by the fall of 2020.
(Source: The Union, 6/9/2017)
The following project was included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP in March 2018: PPNO 4451. 03-Nevada-174 2.7/4.7. Route 174 Near Rollins Lake, from Maple Way to You Bet Road. Realign roadway curves. Begin Con: 7/1/2019. Total Project Cost: $28,803K.
In January 2019, there was a briefing at the CTC meeting from the Save Highway 174 group. The briefing was not included in the CTC minutes, but according to their website, the group "consists of affected property owners, residents and citizens of Nevada County who support reasonable safety improvements, but are concerned with the current design standard for the widening and realignment project proposed by Caltrans for a 1.9 mile portion of Route 174." A briefing on the site to the NCTC in September 2017 notes that the concern is over a 1.9mi segment of Route 174 from Maple Way to You Bet Road. It notes the highway will be leveled, straightened, and widened -- doubling to a minimum width of 64', including a 20' clear recovery zone. There would be additional right of way required approx. 120' to 150', and additional clearing to relocate electrical wires. There would be a total acquisition of over 14 acres from 53 parcels, and removal of over 1,700 conifers, oaks, and smaller trees. Their goals are to create a highway design standard and right-of-way width that is significantly less in scope but still preserves safety. In July 2017, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors wrote a letter to Caltrans, District 3 Director, requesting that Caltrans "reassess this project and its scope of work" and to "increase public outreach for input on the project and its design". They appear to have a large number of concerns about the EIR, believing it should not have been a mitigated EIR.
(Source: Save Highway 174 as of 4/7/2019)
In October 2019, the CTC approved the following SHOPP Safety allocation: 03-Nev-174 2.7/4.6 PPNO 4451 Proj ID 0314000152 EA 4F370. On Route 174 Near Rollins Lake, from Maple Way to You Bet Road. Outcome/Output: Improve safety by realigning curves, adding a southbound left turn lane at Greenhorn Access Road, constructing turnouts, and improving clear recovery zone. This project will reduce the number and severity of collisions. $20,105,000
(Source: October 2019 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5f.(3) #3)
In July 2020, it was reported that Caltrans was starting construction on Aug. 3 on a $27.1 million safety improvement project on Route 174 between Maple Way and You Bet Road in Nevada County. The project is realigning several curves, widening shoulders, adding a southbound left turn pocket at Greenhorn Access Road and improving the clear recovery zone, allowing errant vehicles to regain control. The project also upgrades pedestrian and bicycle facilities along a beautiful stretch of Sierra-area highway, continuing our commitment to multi-modal methods of transportation. DeSilva Gates Construction of Sacramento is the primary contractor for the project. Scheduled construction work for the 2020 season includes preparation for AT&T utility relocation, drainage improvements, tree removal, and roadway widening at various locations. This anticipated work will prepare the roadway for core project improvements planned for the 2021 construction season.
(Source: The Union, 7/28/2020)
In April 2021, it was reported that construction was resuming on a $27.1 million safety improvement project on Route 174 between Maple Way and You Bet Road in Nevada County. The project, which began in August 2020, is realigning several curves, widening shoulders, adding a southbound left-turn pocket at Greenhorn Access Road and improving the clear recovery zone for errant vehicles to regain control. DeSilva Gates Construction of Sacramento is the primary contractor for the project and completion is anticipated in Fall 2021.
(Source: Caltrans Press Release, 4/14/2021)
IFA Q&A Budget Session
To the Membership of the Iowa Firefighters Association,
The board will be holding a Q&A session on the proposed budget increase. This session will be held on Sunday March 7th at 1:00 pm at the Iowa Falls Fire Station. We encourage you to take part in this meeting either in person or online via zoom. The zoom link is available below. If you are unable to participate in the meeting please reach out to a board member and we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. The board feels it is important to share all of our financial information to educate our membership on the need for a dues increase.
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 978 8450 2317
One tap mobile
+12532158782,,97884502317#. *876497# US (Tacoma)
+13462487799,,97884502317#. *876497# US (Houston)
IFA Board of Directors.
SAINT BERNARD and the NFL’s High Ritual to the Roman King of the Gods
The much anticipated — particularly in the astrology community — Jupiter-Saturn Great Conjunction happened on December 21st, 2020. Jupiter-Saturn Great Conjunctions occur every 20 years but 2020’s was a virtual once-in-a-lifetime event when all the astronomical arrangements are taken into consideration. With that in consideration it was prime time for high ritual ritual to effect some high magicians’ intentions for the Age of Aquarius, that is expected to resonate for the next two thousand years.
Monday Night Football was the only professional sports event on show on Conjunction night December 21st 2021, so this more than any other sports event is the prime example of how relevant astrology can be to decoding sports event, especially since this went beyond football or sports in general, but was a night of epic ritual at a time – during the corona virus phenomenon – of unprecedented radical global change.
Because the event centered on the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, the obvious place to start decoding the Monday Night Football game between the Cincinnati Bengals and Pittsburgh Steelers from an astrological stand point would be those two planets: Jupiter and Saturn.
But the context of the radical change occurring globally and some of the primary forces behind that radical change is needed. The Jesuit Order and the Vatican are a major force or the major force as has been covered extensively in the work of Zachary K Hubbard. With that in mind we know that Cincinnati was chosen because of its strong Jesuit roots and the fact that it shares the same moniker as the Vatican: The City of Seven Hills.
I have illustrated extensively that the true object of the Order’s veneration is the Roman god Jupiter the chief deity of Rome – and of Ancient Greece in the form of Zeus – represented by St. Peter.
So in this case the event was centered around the planet Jupiter: The night of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, in a Jesuit city Jupiter being the favored planet of the Jesuits.
Jupiter rules the zodiac signs of Sagittarius and Pisces.
It is not a coincidence that the first openly Jesuit Pope is a Sagittarius, and the Mitre “fish hat” is a Pisces symbol worn by the Pope and Cardinals.
A symbol of Jupiter the orange striped planet, is the Tiger. The Cincinnati Bengals are then instantly recognizable as a Jupiter symbol.
In the absence of superstar rookie quarterback Joe Burrow – who attended LSU Tigers in college and is a Sagittarius, (and the Bollywood Indian movie “Bengal Tiger” was released on his birthday) who would be the star of the masquerade? There were several candidates but the most likely was Bengals veteran Running Back Giovanni Bernard who is a Sagittarius and has a Catholic background. His birthday of November 22nd is related to the Great Conjunction since U.S. Presidents elected in Great Conjunction years have died in office or survived assassination attempts the most famous of which is JFK on November 22nd, Giovani Bernard’s birthday.
November 22nd, 2020 was the also the date that Joe Burrow was eliminated from the grand ritual game with a season ending injury, handing the starring role to Bernard.
Giovani is an Italian name. “Jupiter” in Italian is “GIOVE.” The adjective pertaining to Jupiter is “JOVIAN.” The Italian translation is “GIOVANI.”
The Roman god Jupiter is actually a mere analog of the original archetype: the Sumerian storm god ENLIL. the Babylonian version of Enlil is “ELIL” which also sums to 25.
List of most-liked YouTube videos
This list of most-liked YouTube videos contains the top 30 videos with the most likes of all time. The like count is taken directly from the page of the video itself. YouTube implemented a like and dislike button on these pages in March 2010, part of a major redesign of the site. This served as a replacement for their five-star rating system  YouTube's designers found the previous system ineffective because the options to rate a video between two and four stars were rarely selected. 
The music video for LMFAO's song "Party Rock Anthem" stood as the most liked video on YouTube in 2012, with 1.56 million likes, until the video for Psy's "Gangnam Style" surpassed it in September that year with more than 1.57 million likes. Following this accomplishment, "Gangnam Style" entered the Guinness World Records book as the most liked video on YouTube and on the Internet as of 2012. Psy's video remained the most liked on YouTube for nearly four years until August 27, 2016, when Wiz Khalifa's "See You Again" featuring Charlie Puth surpassed it with 11.21 million likes. Less than a year later, on July 25, 2017, Luis Fonsi's "Despacito" featuring Daddy Yankee claimed the top spot with 16.01 million likes.
Rule 45. Subpoena
(A) Requirements—In General. Every subpoena must:
(i) state the court from which it issued
(ii) state the title of the action and its civil-action number
(iii) command each person to whom it is directed to do the following at a specified time and place: attend and testify produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person's possession, custody, or control or permit the inspection of premises and
(iv) set out the text of Rule 45(d) and (e).
(B) Command to Attend a Deposition—Notice of the Recording Method. A subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition must state the method for recording the testimony.
(C) Combining or Separating a Command to Produce or to Permit Inspection Specifying the Form for Electronically Stored Information. A command to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or to permit the inspection of premises may be included in a subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition, hearing, or trial, or may be set out in a separate subpoena. A subpoena may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.
(D) Command to Produce Included Obligations. A command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things requires the responding person to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the materials.
(2) Issuing Court. A subpoena must issue from the court where the action is pending.
(3) Issued by Whom. 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.
(4) Notice to Other Parties Before Service. If the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party.
(1) By Whom and How Tendering Fees. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena. Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person and, if the subpoena requires that person's attendance, tendering the fees for 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law. Fees and mileage need not be tendered when the subpoena issues on behalf of the United States or any of its officers or agencies.
(2) Service in the United States. A subpoena may be served at any place within the United States.
(3) Service in a Foreign Country. 28 U.S.C. §1783 governs issuing and serving a subpoena directed to a United States national or resident who is in a foreign country.
(4) Proof of Service. Proving service, when necessary, requires filing with the issuing court a statement showing the date and manner of service and the names of the persons served. The statement must be certified by the server.
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person or
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person
(i) is a party or a party's officer or
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person and
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected.
(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.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c)
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.
(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:
(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and
(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
(i) expressly make the claim and
(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
(f) Transferring a Subpoena-Related Motion. When the court where compliance is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances. Then, if the attorney for a person subject to a subpoena is authorized to practice in the court where the motion was made, the attorney may file papers and appear on the motion as an officer of the issuing court. To enforce its order, the issuing court may transfer the order to the court where the motion was made.
(g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required — and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court — may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.
(As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948 Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949 Mar. 30, 1970, eff. July 1, 1970 Apr. 29, 1980, eff. Aug. 1, 1980 Apr. 29, 1985, eff. Aug. 1, 1985 Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987 Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991 Apr. 25, 2005, eff. Dec. 1, 2005 Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006 Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007 Apr. 16, 2013, eff. Dec. 1, 2013.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1937
This rule applies to subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum issued by the district courts for attendance at a hearing or a trial, or to take depositions. It does not apply to the enforcement of subpoenas issued by administrative officers and commissions pursuant to statutory authority. The enforcement of such subpoenas by the district courts is regulated by appropriate statutes. Many of these statutes do not place any territorial limits on the validity of subpoenas so issued, but provide that they may be served anywhere within the United States. Among such statutes are the following:
U.S.C., Title 7, §§222 and 511n (Secretary of Agriculture)
U.S.C., Title 15, §49 (Federal Trade Commission)
U.S.C., Title 15, §§77v(b), 78u(c), 79r(d) (Securities and Exchange Commission)
U.S.C., Title 16, §§797(g) and 825f (Federal Power Commission)
U.S.C., Title 19, §1333(b) (Tariff Commission)
U.S.C., Title 22, §§268, 270d and 270e (International Commissions, etc.)
U.S.C., Title 26, §§614, 619(b) [see 7456] (Board of Tax Appeals)
U.S.C., Title 26, §1523(a) [see 7608] (Internal Revenue Officers)
U.S.C., Title 29, §161 (Labor Relations Board)
U.S.C., Title 33, §506 (Secretary of Army)
U.S.C., Title 35, §§54–56 [now 24] (Patent Office proceedings)
U.S.C., Title 38, [former] §133 (Veterans’ Administration)
U.S.C., Title 41, §39 (Secretary of Labor)
U.S.C., Title 45, §157 Third. (h) (Board of Arbitration under Railway Labor Act)
U.S.C., Title 45, §222(b) (Investigation Commission under Railroad Retirement Act of 1935)
U.S.C., Title 46 [App.], §1124(b) (Maritime Commission)
U.S.C., Title 47, §409(c) and (d) (Federal Communications Commission)
U.S.C., Title 49, §12(2) and (3) [see 721(c) and 13301(c)] (Interstate Commerce Commission)
U.S.C., Title 49, §173a [see 46104] (Secretary of Commerce)
Note to Subdivisions (a) and (b). These simplify the form of subpoena as provided in U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §655 (Witnesses subpoena form attendance under) and broaden U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §636 (Production of books and writings) to include all actions, and to extend to any person. With the provision for relief from an oppressive or unreasonable subpoena duces tecum, compare N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §411.
Note to Subdivision (c). This provides for the simple and convenient method of service permitted under many state codes e.g., N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §§220, 404, J.Ct.Act, §191 3 Wash.Rev.Stat.Ann. (Remington, 1932) §1218. Compare Equity Rule 15 (Process, by Whom Served).
For statutes governing fees and mileage of witnesses see:
§600a [now 1871] (Per diem mileage)
§600c [now 1821, 1825] (Amount per diem and mileage for witnesses subsistence)
§600d [former] (Fees and mileage in certain states)
§601 [former] (Witnesses fees enumeration)
§602 [now 1824] (Fees and mileage of jurors and witnesses)
§603 [see Title 5, §§5515, 5537] (No officer of court to have witness fees)
Note to Subdivision (d). The method provided in paragraph (1) for the authorization of the issuance of subpoenas has been employed in some districts. See Henning v. Boyle, 112 Fed. 397 (S.D.N.Y., 1901). The requirement of an order for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is in accordance with U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §647 (Deposition under dedimus potestatem subpoena duces tecum). The provisions of paragraph (2) are in accordance with common practice. See U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §648 (Deposition under dedimus potestatem witnesses, when required to attend) N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §300 1 N.J.Rev.Stat. (1937) 2:27–174.
Note to Subdivision (e). The first paragraph continues the substance of U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §654 (Witnesses subpoenas may run into another district). Compare U.S.C., Title 11, [former] §69 (Referees in bankruptcy contempts before) (production of books and writings) which is not affected by this rule. For examples of statutes which allow the court, upon proper application and cause shown, to authorize the clerk of the court to issue a subpoena for a witness who lives in another district and at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of the hearing or trial, see:
§23 (Suits by United States subpoenas for witnesses) (under antitrust laws).
§445 [now 1984] (Actions on claims jurisdiction parties procedure limitation witnesses definitions) (Veterans insurance contracts).
The second paragraph continues the present procedure applicable to certain witnesses who are in foreign countries. See U.S.C., Title 28, §§711 [now 1783] (Letters rogatory to take testimony of witness, addressed to court of foreign country failure of witness to appear subpoena) and 713 [now 1783] (Service of subpoena on witness in foreign country).
Note to Subdivision (f). Compare [former] Equity Rule 52 (Attendance of Witnesses Before Commissioner, Master, or Examiner).
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1946 Amendment
Subdivision (b). The added words, “or tangible things” in subdivision (b) merely make the rule for the subpoena duces tecum at the trial conform to that of subdivision (d) for the subpoena at the taking of depositions.
The insertion of the words “or modify” in clause (1) affords desirable flexibility.
Subdivision (d). The added last sentence of amended subdivision (d)(1) properly gives the subpoena for documents or tangible things the same scope as provided in Rule 26(b), thus promoting uniformity. The requirement in the last sentence of original Rule 45(d)(1)—to the effect that leave of court should be obtained for the issuance of such a subpoena—has been omitted. This requirement is unnecessary and oppressive on both counsel and court, and it has been criticized by district judges. There is no satisfactory reason for a differentiation between a subpoena for the production of documentary evidence by a witness at a trial (Rule 45(a)) and for the production of the same evidence at the taking of a deposition. Under this amendment, the person subpoenaed may obtain the protection afforded by any of the orders permitted under Rule 30(b) or Rule 45(b). See Application of Zenith Radio Corp. (E.D.Pa. 1941) 4 Fed.Rules Serv. 30b.21, Case 1, 1 F.R.D. 627 Fox v. House (E.D.Okla. 1939) 29 F.Supp. 673 United States of America for the Use of Tilo Roofing Co., Inc. v. J. Slotnik Co. (D.Conn. 1944) 3 F.R.D. 408.
The changes in subdivision (d)(2) give the court the same power in the case of residents of the district as is conferred in the case of non-residents, and permit the court to fix a place for attendance which may be more convenient and accessible for the parties than that specified in the rule.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1948 Amendment
The amendment substitutes the present statutory reference.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1970 Amendment
At present, when a subpoena duces tecum is issued to a deponent, he is required to produce the listed materials at the deposition, but is under no clear compulsion to permit their inspection and copying. This results in confusion and uncertainty before the time the deposition is taken, with no mechanism provided whereby the court can resolve the matter. Rule 45(d)(1), as revised, makes clear that the subpoena authorizes inspection and copying of the materials produced. The deponent is afforded full protection since he can object, thereby forcing the party serving the subpoena to obtain a court order if he wishes to inspect and copy. The procedure is thus analogous to that provided in Rule 34.
The changed references to other rules conform to changes made in those rules. The deletion of words in the clause describing the proper scope of the subpoena conforms to a change made in the language of Rule 34. The reference to Rule 26(b) is unchanged but encompasses new matter in that subdivision. The changes make it clear that the scope of discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and the other discovery rules.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1980 Amendment
Subdivision (d)(1). The amendment defines the term “proof of service” as used in the first sentence of the present subdivision. For want of a definition, the district court clerks have been obliged to fashion their own, with results that vary from district to district. All that seems required is a simple certification on a copy of the notice to take a deposition that the notice has been served on every other party to the action. That is the proof of service required by Rule 25(d) of both the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Supreme Court Rules.
Subdivision (e)(1). The amendment makes the reach of a subpoena of a district court at least as extensive as that of the state courts of general jurisdiction in the state in which the district court is held. Under the present rule the reach of a district court subpoena is often greater, since it extends throughout the district. No reason appears why it should be less, as it sometimes is because of the accident of district lines. Restrictions upon the reach of subpoenas are imposed to prevent undue inconvenience to witnesses. State statutes and rules of court are quite likely to reflect the varying degrees of difficulty and expense attendant upon local travel.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1985 Amendment
Present Rule 45(d)(2) has two sentences setting forth the territorial scope of deposition subpoenas. The first sentence is directed to depositions taken in the judicial district in which the deponent resides the second sentence addresses situations in which the deponent is not a resident of the district in which the deposition is to take place. The Rule, as currently constituted, creates anomalous situations that often cause logistical problems in conducting litigation.
The first sentence of the present Rule states that a deponent may be required to attend only in the county wherein that person resides or is employed or transacts business in person, that is, where the person lives or works. Under this provision a deponent can be compelled, without court order, to travel from one end of that person's home county to the other, no matter how far that may be. The second sentence of the Rule is somewhat more flexible, stating that someone who does not reside in the district in which the deposition is to be taken can be required to attend in the county where the person is served with the subpoena, or within 40 miles from the place of service.
Under today's conditions there is no sound reason for distinguishing between residents of the district or county in which a deposition is to be taken and nonresidents, and the Rule is amended to provide that any person may be subpoenaed to attend a deposition within a specified radius from that person's residence, place of business, or where the person was served. The 40-mile radius has been increased to 100 miles.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment
The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1991 Amendment
Purposes of Revision. The purposes of this revision are (1) to clarify and enlarge the protections afforded persons who are required to assist the court by giving information or evidence (2) to facilitate access outside the deposition procedure provided by Rule 30 to documents and other information in the possession of persons who are not parties (3) to facilitate service of subpoenas for depositions or productions of evidence at places distant from the district in which an action is proceeding (4) to enable the court to compel a witness found within the state in which the court sits to attend trial (5) to clarify the organization of the text of the rule.
Subdivision (a). This subdivision is amended in seven significant respects.
First, Paragraph (a)(3) modifies the requirement that a subpoena be issued by the clerk of court. Provision is made for the issuance of subpoenas by attorneys as officers of the court. This revision perhaps culminates an evolution. Subpoenas were long issued by specific order of the court. As this became a burden to the court, general orders were made authorizing clerks to issue subpoenas on request. Since 1948, they have been issued in blank by the clerk of any federal court to any lawyer, the clerk serving as stationer to the bar. In allowing counsel to issue the subpoena, the rule is merely a recognition of present reality.
Although the subpoena is in a sense the command of the attorney who completes the form, defiance of a subpoena is nevertheless an act in defiance of a court order and exposes the defiant witness to contempt sanctions. In ICC v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447 (1894), the Court upheld a statute directing federal courts to issue subpoenas to compel testimony before the ICC. In CAB v. Hermann, 353 U.S. 322 (1957), the Court approved as established practice the issuance of administrative subpoenas as a matter of absolute agency right. And in NLRB v. Warren Co., 350 U.S. 107 (1955), the Court held that the lower court had no discretion to withhold sanctions against a contemnor who violated such subpoenas. The 1948 revision of Rule 45 put the attorney in a position similar to that of the administrative agency, as a public officer entitled to use the court's contempt power to investigate facts in dispute. Two courts of appeals have touched on the issue and have described lawyer-issued subpoenas as mandates of the court. Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Rollins Environmental Services (NJ), Inc., 893 F.2d 605 (3d cir., 1990) Fisher v. Marubent Cotton Corp., 526 F.2d 1338, 1340 (8th cir., 1975). Cf. Young v. United States ex rel Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 821 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring). This revision makes the rule explicit that the attorney acts as an officer of the court in issuing and signing subpoenas.
Necessarily accompanying the evolution of this power of the lawyer as officer of the court is the development of increased responsibility and liability for the misuse of this power. The latter development is reflected in the provisions of subdivision (c) of this rule, and also in the requirement imposed by paragraph (3) of this subdivision that the attorney issuing a subpoena must sign it.
Second, Paragraph (a)(3) authorizes attorneys in distant districts to serve as officers authorized to issue commands in the name of the court. Any attorney permitted to represent a client in a federal court, even one admitted pro hac vice, has the same authority as a clerk to issue a subpoena from any federal court for the district in which the subpoena is served and enforced. In authorizing attorneys to issue subpoenas from distant courts, the amended rule effectively authorizes service of a subpoena anywhere in the United States by an attorney representing any party. This change is intended to ease the administrative burdens of inter-district law practice. The former rule resulted in delay and expense caused by the need to secure forms from clerks’ offices some distance from the place at which the action proceeds. This change does not enlarge the burden on the witness.
Pursuant to Paragraph (a)(2), a subpoena for a deposition must still issue from the court in which the deposition or production would be compelled. Accordingly, a motion to quash such a subpoena if it overbears the limits of the subpoena power must, as under the previous rule, be presented to the court for the district in which the deposition would occur. Likewise, the court in whose name the subpoena is issued is responsible for its enforcement.
Third, in order to relieve attorneys of the need to secure an appropriate seal to affix to a subpoena issued as an officer of a distant court, the requirement that a subpoena be under seal is abolished by the provisions of Paragraph (a)(1).
Fourth, Paragraph (a)(1) authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to compel a non-party to produce evidence independent of any deposition. This revision spares the necessity of a deposition of the custodian of evidentiary material required to be produced. A party seeking additional production from a person subject to such a subpoena may serve an additional subpoena requiring additional production at the same time and place.
Fifth, Paragraph (a)(2) makes clear that the person subject to the subpoena is required to produce materials in that person's control whether or not the materials are located within the district or within the territory within which the subpoena can be served. The non-party witness is subject to the same scope of discovery under this rule as that person would be as a party to whom a request is addressed pursuant to Rule 34.
Sixth, Paragraph (a)(1) requires that the subpoena include a statement of the rights and duties of witnesses by setting forth in full the text of the new subdivisions (c) and (d).
Seventh, the revised rule authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to compel the inspection of premises in the possession of a non-party. Rule 34 has authorized such inspections of premises in the possession of a party as discovery compelled under Rule 37, but prior practice required an independent proceeding to secure such relief ancillary to the federal proceeding when the premises were not in the possession of a party. Practice in some states has long authorized such use of a subpoena for this purpose without apparent adverse consequence.
Subdivision (b). Paragraph (b)(1) retains the text of the former subdivision (c) with minor changes.
The reference to the United States marshal and deputy marshal is deleted because of the infrequency of the use of these officers for this purpose. Inasmuch as these officers meet the age requirement, they may still be used if available.
A provision requiring service of prior notice pursuant to Rule 5 of compulsory pretrial production or inspection has been added to paragraph (b)(1). The purpose of such notice is to afford other parties an opportunity to object to the production or inspection, or to serve a demand for additional documents or things. Such additional notice is not needed with respect to a deposition because of the requirement of notice imposed by Rule 30 or 31. But when production or inspection is sought independently of a deposition, other parties may need notice in order to monitor the discovery and in order to pursue access to any information that may or should be produced.
Paragraph (b)(2) retains language formerly set forth in subdivision (e) and extends its application to subpoenas for depositions or production.
Paragraph (b)(3) retains language formerly set forth in paragraph (d)(1) and extends its applications to subpoenas for trial or hearing or production.
Subdivision (c). This provision is new and states the rights of witnesses. It is not intended to diminish rights conferred by Rules 26–37 or any other authority.
Paragraph (c)(1) gives specific application to the principle stated in Rule 26(g) and specifies liability for earnings lost by a non-party witness as a result of a misuse of the subpoena. No change in existing law is thereby effected. Abuse of a subpoena is an actionable tort, Board of Ed. v. Farmingdale Classroom Teach. Ass'n, 38 N.Y.2d 397, 380 N.Y.S.2d 635, 343 N.E.2d 278 (1975), and the duty of the attorney to the non-party is also embodied in Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4. The liability of the attorney is correlative to the expanded power of the attorney to issue subpoenas. The liability may include the cost of fees to collect attorneys’ fees owed as a result of a breach of this duty.
Paragraph (c)(2) retains language from the former subdivision (b) and paragraph (d)(1). The 10-day period for response to a subpoena is extended to 14 days to avoid the complex calculations associated with short time periods under Rule 6 and to allow a bit more time for such objections to be made.
A non-party required to produce documents or materials is protected against significant expense resulting from involuntary assistance to the court. This provision applies, for example, to a non-party required to provide a list of class members. The court is not required to fix the costs in advance of production, although this will often be the most satisfactory accommodation to protect the party seeking discovery from excessive costs. In some instances, it may be preferable to leave uncertain costs to be determined after the materials have been produced, provided that the risk of uncertainty is fully disclosed to the discovering party. See, e.g., United States v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982).
Paragraph (c)(3) explicitly authorizes the quashing of a subpoena as a means of protecting a witness from misuse of the subpoena power. It replaces and enlarges on the former subdivision (b) of this rule and tracks the provisions of Rule 26(c). While largely repetitious, this rule is addressed to the witness who may read it on the subpoena, where it is required to be printed by the revised paragraph (a)(1) of this rule.
Subparagraph (c)(3)(A) identifies those circumstances in which a subpoena must be quashed or modified. It restates the former provisions with respect to the limits of mandatory travel that are set forth in the former paragraphs (d)(2) and (e)(1), with one important change. Under the revised rule, a federal court can compel a witness to come from any place in the state to attend trial, whether or not the local state law so provides. This extension is subject to the qualification provided in the next paragraph, which authorizes the court to condition enforcement of a subpoena compelling a non-party witness to bear substantial expense to attend trial. The traveling non-party witness may be entitled to reasonable compensation for the time and effort entailed.
Clause (c)(3)(A)(iv) requires the court to protect all persons from undue burden imposed by the use of the subpoena power. Illustratively, it might be unduly burdensome to compel an adversary to attend trial as a witness if the adversary is known to have no personal knowledge of matters in dispute, especially so if the adversary would be required to incur substantial travel burdens.
Subparagraph (c)(3)(B) identifies circumstances in which a subpoena should be quashed unless the party serving the subpoena shows a substantial need and the court can devise an appropriate accommodation to protect the interests of the witness. An additional circumstance in which such action is required is a request for costly production of documents that situation is expressly governed by subparagraph (b)(2)(B).
Clause (c)(3)(B)(i) authorizes the court to quash, modify, or condition a subpoena to protect the person subject to or affected by the subpoena from unnecessary or unduly harmful disclosures of confidential information. It corresponds to Rule 26(c)(7).
Clause (c)(3)(B)(ii) provides appropriate protection for the intellectual property of the non-party witness it does not apply to the expert retained by a party, whose information is subject to the provisions of Rule 26(b)(4). A growing problem has been the use of subpoenas to compel the giving of evidence and information by unretained experts. Experts are not exempt from the duty to give evidence, even if they cannot be compelled to prepare themselves to give effective testimony, e.g., Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Otte, 474 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1972), but compulsion to give evidence may threaten the intellectual property of experts denied the opportunity to bargain for the value of their services. See generally Maurer, Compelling the Expert Witness: Fairness and Utility Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , 19 GA.L.REV. 71 (1984) Note, Discovery and Testimony of Unretained Experts, 1987 DUKE L.J. 140. Arguably the compulsion to testify can be regarded as a “taking” of intellectual property. The rule establishes the right of such persons to withhold their expertise, at least unless the party seeking it makes the kind of showing required for a conditional denial of a motion to quash as provided in the final sentence of subparagraph (c)(3)(B) that requirement is the same as that necessary to secure work product under Rule 26(b)(3) and gives assurance of reasonable compensation. The Rule thus approves the accommodation of competing interests exemplified in United States v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982). See also Wright v. Jeep Corporation, 547 F. Supp. 871 (E.D. Mich. 1982).
As stated in Kaufman v. Edelstein, 539 F.2d 811, 822 (2d Cir. 1976), the district court's discretion in these matters should be informed by “the degree to which the expert is being called because of his knowledge of facts relevant to the case rather than in order to give opinion testimony the difference between testifying to a previously formed or expressed opinion and forming a new one the possibility that, for other reasons, the witness is a unique expert the extent to which the calling party is able to show the unlikelihood that any comparable witness will willingly testify and the degree to which the witness is able to show that he has been oppressed by having continually to testify. . . .”
Clause (c)(3)(B)(iii) protects non-party witnesses who may be burdened to perform the duty to travel in order to provide testimony at trial. The provision requires the court to condition a subpoena requiring travel of more than 100 miles on reasonable compensation.
Subdivision (d). This provision is new. Paragraph (d)(1) extends to non-parties the duty imposed on parties by the last paragraph of Rule 34(b), which was added in 1980.
Paragraph (d)(2) is new and corresponds to the new Rule 26(b)(5). Its purpose is to provide a party whose discovery is constrained by a claim of privilege or work product protection with information sufficient to evaluate such a claim and to resist if it seems unjustified. The person claiming a privilege or protection cannot decide the limits of that party's own entitlement.
A party receiving a discovery request who asserts a privilege or protection but fails to disclose that claim is at risk of waiving the privilege or protection. A person claiming a privilege or protection who fails to provide adequate information about the privilege or protection claim to the party seeking the information is subject to an order to show cause why the person should not be held in contempt under subdivision (e). Motions for such orders and responses to motions are subject to the sanctions provisions of Rules 7 and 11.
A person served a subpoena that is too broad may be faced with a burdensome task to provide full information regarding all that person's claims to privilege or work product protection. Such a person is entitled to protection that may be secured through an objection made pursuant to paragraph (c)(2).
Subdivision (e). This provision retains most of the language of the former subdivision (f).
“Adequate cause” for a failure to obey a subpoena remains undefined. In at least some circumstances, a non-party might be guilty of contempt for refusing to obey a subpoena even though the subpoena manifestly overreaches the appropriate limits of the subpoena power. E.g., Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967). But, because the command of the subpoena is not in fact one uttered by a judicial officer, contempt should be very sparingly applied when the non-party witness has been overborne by a party or attorney. The language added to subdivision (f) is intended to assure that result where a non-party has been commanded, on the signature of an attorney, to travel greater distances than can be compelled pursuant to this rule.
Committee Notes on Rules—2005 Amendment
This amendment closes a small gap in regard to notifying witnesses of the manner for recording a deposition. A deposition subpoena must state the method for recording the testimony.
Rule 30(b)(2) directs that the party noticing a deposition state in the notice the manner for recording the testimony, but the notice need not be served on the deponent. The deponent learns of the recording method only if the deponent is a party or is informed by a party. Rule 30(b)(3) permits another party to designate an additional method of recording with prior notice to the deponent and the other parties. The deponent thus has notice of the recording method when an additional method is designated. This amendment completes the notice provisions to ensure that a nonparty deponent has notice of the recording method when the recording method is described only in the deposition notice.
A subpoenaed witness does not have a right to refuse to proceed with a deposition due to objections to the manner of recording. But under rare circumstances, a nonparty witness might have a ground for seeking a protective order under Rule 26(c) with regard to the manner of recording or the use of the deposition if recorded in a certain manner. Should such a witness not learn of the manner of recording until the deposition begins, undesirable delay or complication might result. Advance notice of the recording method affords an opportunity to raise such protective issues.
Other changes are made to conform Rule 45(a)(2) to current style conventions.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. Only a small style change has been made in the proposal as published.
Committee Notes on Rules—2006 Amendment
Rule 45 is amended to conform the provisions for subpoenas to changes in other discovery rules, largely related to discovery of electronically stored information. Rule 34 is amended to provide in greater detail for the production of electronically stored information. Rule 45(a)(1)(C) is amended to recognize that electronically stored information, as defined in Rule 34(a), can also be sought by subpoena. Like Rule 34(b), Rule 45(a)(1) is amended to provide that the subpoena can designate a form or forms for production of electronic data. Rule 45(c)(2) is amended, like Rule 34(b), to authorize the person served with a subpoena to object to the requested form or forms. In addition, as under Rule 34(b), Rule 45(d)(1)(B) is amended to provide that if the subpoena does not specify the form or forms for electronically stored information, the person served with the subpoena must produce electronically stored information in a form or forms in which it is usually maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable. Rule 45(d)(1)(C) is added to provide that the person producing electronically stored information should not have to produce the same information in more than one form unless so ordered by the court for good cause.
As with discovery of electronically stored information from parties, complying with a subpoena for such information may impose burdens on the responding person. Rule 45(c) provides protection against undue impositions on nonparties. For example, Rule 45(c)(1) directs that a party serving a subpoena “shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena,” and Rule 45(c)(2)(B) permits the person served with the subpoena to object to it and directs that an order requiring compliance “shall protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from” compliance. Rule 45(d)(1)(D) is added to provide that the responding person need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources the party identifies as not reasonably accessible, unless the court orders such discovery for good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C), on terms that protect a nonparty against significant expense. A parallel provision is added to Rule 26(b)(2).
Rule 45(a)(1)(B) is also amended, as is Rule 34(a), to provide that a subpoena is available to permit testing and sampling as well as inspection and copying. As in Rule 34, this change recognizes that on occasion the opportunity to perform testing or sampling may be important, both for documents and for electronically stored information. Because testing or sampling may present particular issues of burden or intrusion for the person served with the subpoena, however, the protective provisions of Rule 45(c) should be enforced with vigilance when such demands are made. Inspection or testing of certain types of electronically stored information or of a person's electronic information system may raise issues of confidentiality or privacy. The addition of sampling and testing to Rule 45(a) with regard to documents and electronically stored information is not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a person's electronic information system, although such access might be justified in some circumstances. Courts should guard against undue intrusiveness resulting from inspecting or testing such systems.
Rule 45(d)(2) is amended, as is Rule 26(b)(5), to add a procedure for assertion of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials after production. The receiving party may submit the information to the court for resolution of the privilege claim, as under Rule 26(b)(5)(B).
Other minor amendments are made to conform the rule to the changes described above.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. The Committee recommends a modified version of the proposal as published. The changes were made to maintain the parallels between Rule 45 and the other rules that address discovery of electronically stored information. These changes are fully described in the introduction to Rule 45 and in the discussions of the other rules. [Omitted]
The changes from the published proposed amendment are shown below. [Omitted]
Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment
The language of Rule 45 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.
The reference to discovery of “books” in former Rule 45(a)(1)(C) was deleted to achieve consistent expression throughout the discovery rules. Books remain a proper subject of discovery.
Former Rule 45(b)(1) required “prior notice” to each party of any commanded production of documents and things or inspection of premises. Courts have agreed that notice must be given “prior” to the return date, and have tended to converge on an interpretation that requires notice to the parties before the subpoena is served on the person commanded to produce or permit inspection. That interpretation is adopted in amended Rule 45(b)(1) to give clear notice of general present practice.
The language of former Rule 45(d)(2) addressing the manner of asserting privilege is replaced by adopting the wording of Rule 26(b)(5). The same meaning is better expressed in the same words.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. See Note to Rule 1, supra.
Committee Notes on Rules—2013 Amendment
Rule 45 was extensively amended in 1991. The goal of the present amendments is to clarify and simplify the rule. The amendments recognize the court where the action is pending as the issuing court, permit nationwide service of subpoena, and collect in a new subdivision (c) the previously scattered provisions regarding place of compliance. These changes resolve a conflict that arose after the 1991 amendment about a court's authority to compel a party or party officer to travel long distances to testify at trial such testimony may now be required only as specified in new Rule 45(c). In addition, the amendments introduce authority in new Rule 45(f) for the court where compliance is required to transfer a subpoena-related motion to the court where the action is pending on consent of the person subject to the subpoena or in exceptional circumstances.
Subdivision (a). This subdivision is amended to provide that a subpoena issues from the court where the action is pending. Subdivision (a)(3) specifies that an attorney authorized to practice in that court may issue a subpoena, which is consistent with current practice.
In Rule 45(a)(1)(D), "person" is substituted for "party" because the subpoena may be directed to a nonparty.
Rule 45(a)(4) is added to highlight and slightly modify a notice requirement first included in the rule in 1991. Under the 1991 amendments, Rule 45(b)(1) required prior notice of the service of a "documents only" subpoena to the other parties. Rule 45(b)(1) was clarified in 2007 to specify that this notice must be served before the subpoena is served on the witness.
The Committee has been informed that parties serving subpoenas frequently fail to give the required notice to the other parties. The amendment moves the notice requirement to a new provision in Rule 45(a) and requires that the notice include a copy of the subpoena. The amendments are intended to achieve the original purpose of enabling the other parties to object or to serve a subpoena for additional materials.
Parties desiring access to information produced in response to the subpoena will need to follow up with the party serving it or the person served to obtain such access. The rule does not limit the court's authority to order notice of receipt of produced materials or access to them. The party serving the subpoena should in any event make reasonable provision for prompt access.
Subdivision (b). The former notice requirement in Rule 45(b)(1) has been moved to new Rule 45(a)(4).
Rule 45(b)(2) is amended to provide that a subpoena may be served at any place within the United States, removing the complexities prescribed in prior versions.
Subdivision (c). Subdivision (c) is new. It collects the various provisions on where compliance can be required and simplifies them. Unlike the prior rule, place of service is not critical to place of compliance. Although Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iii) permits the subpoena to direct a place of compliance, that place must be selected under Rule 45(c).
Rule 45(c)(1) addresses a subpoena to testify at a trial, hearing, or deposition. Rule 45(c)(1)(A) provides that compliance may be required within 100 miles of where the person subject to the subpoena resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. For parties and party officers, Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(i) provides that compliance may be required anywhere in the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. When an order under Rule 43(a) authorizes testimony from a remote location, the witness can be commanded to testify from any place described in Rule 45(c)(1).
Under Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(ii), nonparty witnesses can be required to travel more than 100 miles within the state where they reside, are employed, or regularly transact business in person only if they would not, as a result, incur "substantial expense." When travel over 100 miles could impose substantial expense on the witness, the party that served the subpoena may pay that expense and the court can condition enforcement of the subpoena on such payment.
Because Rule 45(c) directs that compliance may be commanded only as it provides, these amendments resolve a split in interpreting Rule 45's provisions for subpoenaing parties and party officers. Compare In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 438 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. La. 2006) (finding authority to compel a party officer from New Jersey to testify at trial in New Orleans), with Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 213 (E.D. La. 2008) (holding that Rule 45 did not require attendance of plaintiffs at trial in New Orleans when they would have to travel more than 100 miles from outside the state). Rule 45(c)(1)(A) does not authorize a subpoena for trial to require a party or party officer to travel more than 100 miles unless the party or party officer resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person in the state.
Depositions of parties, and officers, directors, and managing agents of parties need not involve use of a subpoena. Under Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(i), failure of such a witness whose deposition was properly noticed to appear for the deposition can lead to Rule 37(b) sanctions (including dismissal or default but not contempt) without regard to service of a subpoena and without regard to the geographical limitations on compliance with a subpoena. These amendments do not change that existing law the courts retain their authority to control the place of party depositions and impose sanctions for failure to appear under Rule 37(b).
For other discovery, Rule 45(c)(2) directs that inspection of premises occur at those premises, and that production of documents, tangible things, and electronically stored information may be commanded to occur at a place within 100 miles of where the person subject to the subpoena resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. Under the current rule, parties often agree that production, particularly of electronically stored information, be transmitted be electronic means. Such arrangements facilitate discovery, and nothing in these amendments limits the ability of parties to make such arrangements.
Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(ii) directs the court to quash any subpoena that purports to compel compliance beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c).
Subdivision (d). Subdivision (d) contains the provisions formerly in subdivision (c). It is revised to recognize the court where the action is pending as the issuing court, and to take account of the addition of Rule 45(c) to specify where compliance with a subpoena is required.
Subdivision (f). Subdivision (f) is new. Under Rules 45(d)(2)(b), 45(d)(3), and 45(e)(2)(B), subpoena-related motions and applications are to be made to the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c). Rule 45(f) provides authority for that court to transfer the motion to the court where the action is pending. It applies to all motions under this rule, including an application under Rule 45(e)(2)(B) for a privilege determination.
Subpoenas are essential to obtain discovery from nonparties. To protect local nonparties, local resolution of disputes about subpoenas is assured by the limitations of Rule 45(c) and the requirements in Rules 45(d) and (e) that motions be made in the court in which compliance is required under Rule 45(c). But transfer to the court where the action is pending is sometimes warranted. If the person subject to the subpoena consents to transfer, Rule 45(f) provides that the court where compliance is required may do so.
In the absence of consent, the court may transfer in exceptional circumstances, and the proponent of transfer bears the burden of showing that such circumstances are present. The prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions. In some circumstances, however, transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court's management of the underlying litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion or the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts. Transfer is appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion. Judges in compliance districts may find it helpful to consult with the judge in the issuing court presiding over the underlying case while addressing subpoena-related motions.
If the motion is transferred, judges are encouraged to permit telecommunications methods to minimalize the burden a transfer imposes on nonparties, if it is necessary for attorneys admitted in the court where the motion is made to appear in the court in which the action is pending. The rule provides that if these attorneys are authorized to practice in the court where the motion is made, they may file papers and appear in the court in which the action is pending in relation to the motion as officers of that court.
After transfer, the court where the action is pending will decide the motion. If the court rules that discovery is not justified, that should end the matter. If the court orders further discovery, it is possible that retransfer may be important to enforce the order. One consequence of failure to obey such an order is contempt, addressed in Rule 45(g). Rule 45(g) and Rule 37(b)(1) are both amended to provide that disobedience of an order enforcing a subpoena after transfer is contempt of the issuing court and the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c). In some instances, however, there may be a question about where the issuing court can impose contempt sanctions on a distant nonparty. If such circumstances arise, or if it is better to supervise compliance in the court where compliance is required, the rule provides authority for retransfer for enforcement. Although changed circumstances may prompt a modification of such an order, it is not expected that the compliance court will reexamine the resolution of the underlying motion.
Subdivision (g). Subdivision (g) carries forward the authority of former subdivision (e) to punish disobedience of subpoenas as contempt. It is amended to make clear that, in the event of transfer of a subpoena-related motions, such disobedience constitutes contempt of both the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c) and the court where the action is pending. If necessary for effective enforcement, Rule 45(f) authorizes the issuing court to transfer its order after the motion is resolved.
The rule is also amended to clarify that contempt sanctions may be applied to a person who disobeys a subpoena-related order, as well as one who fails entirely to obey a subpoena. In civil litigation, it would be rare for a court to use contempt sanctions without first ordering compliance with a subpoena, and the order might not require all the compliance sought by the subpoena. Often contempt proceedings will be initiated by an order to show cause, and an order to comply or be held in contempt may modify the subpoena's command. Disobedience of such an order may be treated as contempt.
The second sentence of former subdivision (e) is deleted as unnecessary.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. As described in the Report, the published preliminary draft was modified in several ways after the public comment period. The words "before trial" were restored to the notice provision that was moved to new Rule 459a)(4). The place of compliance in new Rule 45(c)(2)(A) was changed to a place "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed or regularly conducts business." In new Rule 45(f), the party consent feature was removed, meaning consent of the person subject to the subpoena is sufficient to permit transfer to the issuing court. In addition, style changes were made after consultation with the Standing Committee's Style Consultant. In the Committee Note, clarifications were made in response to points raised during the public comment period.
The Right to Mint Coins and the Right to Levy Taxes
--> (1899.2) 174:2.2 Tuesday morning, when Jesus arrived in the temple court and began to teach, he had uttered but few words when a group of the younger students from the academies, who had been rehearsed for this purpose, came forward and by their spokesman addressed Jesus: “Master, we know you are a righteous teacher, and we know that you proclaim the ways of truth, and that you serve only God, for you fear no man, and that you are no respecter of persons. We are only students, and we would know the truth about a matter which troubles us our difficulty is this: Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar? Shall we give or shall we not give?” Jesus, perceiving their hypocrisy and craftiness, said to them: “Why do you thus come to tempt me? Show me the tribute money, and I will answer you.” And when they handed him a denarius, he looked at it and said, “Whose image and superscription does this coin bear?” And when they answered him, “Caesar’s,” Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render to God the things that are God’s.”
(1899.3) 174:2.3 When he had thus answered these young scribes and their Herodian accomplices, they withdrew from his presence, and the people, even the Sadducees, enjoyed their discomfiture. Even the youths who had endeavored to entrap him marveled greatly at the unexpected sagacity of the Master’s answer.
(1899.4) 174:2.4 The previous day the rulers had sought to trip him before the multitude on matters of ecclesiastical authority, and having failed, they now sought to involve him in a damaging discussion of civil authority. Both Pilate and Herod were in Jerusalem at this time, and Jesus’ enemies conjectured that, if he would dare to advise against the payment of tribute to Caesar, they could go at once before the Roman authorities and charge him with sedition. On the other hand, if he should advise the payment of tribute in so many words, they rightly calculated that such a pronouncement would greatly wound the national pride of his Jewish hearers, thereby alienating the good will and affection of the multitude.
(1899.5) 174:2.5 In all this the enemies of Jesus were defeated since it was a well-known ruling of the Sanhedrin, made for the guidance of the Jews dispersed among the gentile nations, that the “right of coinage carried with it the right to levy taxes.” In this manner Jesus avoided their trap. To have answered “No” to their question would have been equivalent to inciting rebellion to have answered “Yes” would have shocked the deep-rooted nationalist sentiments of that day. The Master did not evade the question he merely employed the wisdom of making a double reply. Jesus was never evasive, but he was always wise in his dealings with those who sought to harass and destroy him.
Barrick Gold Corp (NYSE:GOLD)
Most stock quote data provided by BATS. Market indices are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer. Morningstar: © 2019 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Factset: FactSet Research Systems Inc.2019. All rights reserved. Chicago Mercantile Association: Certain market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. Dow Jones: The Dow Jones branded indices are proprietary to and are calculated, distributed and marketed by DJI Opco, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and have been licensed for use to S&P Opco, LLC and CNN. Standard & Poor's and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. All content of the Dow Jones branded indices © S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2019 and/or its affiliates.
© 2020 Cable News Network. A Warner Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
CNN Sans™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
Other initiatives, projects and programmes
Maharishi International University (renamed Maharishi University of Management (MUM) in 1995), the first university the Maharishi founded, began classes in Santa Barbara, California, in 1973. In 1974 the university moved to Fairfield, Iowa, where it remains today. The university houses a library of the Maharishi's taped lectures and writings, including the thirty-three-lesson Science of Creative Intelligence course, originally a series of lectures given by the Maharishi in Fiuggi, Italy, in 1972. Described in the MUM university catalogue as combining modern science and Vedic science,  the course also defines certain higher states of consciousness, and gives guidance on how to attain these states. 
The Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools (MVMS), an educational system established in sixteen Indian states and affiliated with the New Delhi Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), was founded in 1995 by the Maharishi.  It has 148 branches in 118 cities with 90,000 to 100,000 students and 5,500 teaching and support staff. 
In 1998, Maharishi Open University was founded by the Maharishi. It was accessible via a network of eight satellites broadcasting to every country in the world, and via the Internet.  
The Maharishi also introduced theories of management, defence, and government  programmes designed to alleviate poverty, and introduced a new economic development currency called the RAAM.  In 2000, the Maharishi began building administrative and teaching centres called "Peace Palaces" around the world, and by 2008 at least eight had been constructed in the US alone.  The Maharishi Institute, an African university that is part of a group of schools around the world that are named after him, was founded in 2007 and uses his Transcendental Meditation technique in their teaching.  
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, in his farewell message on 11 January 2008, announced the establishment of the Brahmananda Saraswati Trust (BST), named in honour of his teacher, to support large groups totalling more than 30,000 peace-creating Vedic Pandits in perpetuity across India.  The Patron of the Brahmanand Saraswati Trust is the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math. 
Organizations and businesses
The Maharishi is credited with heading charitable organisations, for-profit businesses, and real estate investments whose total value has been estimated at various times, to range from US$ 2 to US$ 5 billion. The real estate alone was valued in 2003 at between $3.6 and $5 billion.  Holdings in the United States, estimated at $250 million in 2008, include dozens of hotels, commercial buildings and undeveloped land.  The Maharishi "amassed a personal fortune that his spokesman told one reporter may exceed $1 billion".  According to a 2008 article in The Times, the Maharishi "was reported to have an income of six million pounds".  The Maharishi's movement is said to be funded through donations, course fees for Transcendental Meditation and various real estate transactions. 
In his biography of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, The Story of the Maharishi (published 1976), William Jefferson suggests that the financial aspect of the TM organisation was one of the greatest controversies it faced. The controversy circled around the Maharishi's mission, the comments from leaders of the movement at that time, and fees and charges the TM organisation made. Jefferson says that the concerns with money came from journalists more than those who have learned to meditate.