Motion to Quash Subpoena Transferred to Texas to Avoid Inconsistent Privilege Rulings

NEW YORK (LN) — U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick on Monday granted a motion to transfer a subpoena quash motion to the Eastern District of Texas, holding that the Texas court is best positioned to resolve the privilege dispute and avoid inconsistent rulings in the underlying patent case.

The dispute centers on a subpoena issued by Hayden AI Technologies Inc. against non-party Kent C. Hess. Hess filed a motion to quash in the Southern District of New York, and Hayden filed a separate motion to transfer that quash motion to the Eastern District of Texas, where the underlying patent infringement lawsuit between Hayden and defendant Fleetmind Seon Solutions Inc. is pending.

Broderick granted the transfer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f), which allows a court to transfer subpoena-related motions if "exceptional circumstances" exist. The judge held that the Texas court’s familiarity with the case background and ongoing discovery made it the appropriate forum.

"The Texas Court’s familiarity with the background of the case therefore means that it is 'best-positioned to address the subpoena,'" Broderick wrote, citing prior Southern District precedent.

The judge highlighted the risk of inconsistent rulings as a primary factor. The privilege inquiry at issue relates to the privilege of Fleetmind Seon Solutions Inc., the defendant in the Texas case, and any ruling by the New York court could conflict with privilege determinations the Texas court is expected to make in the underlying litigation.

On November 12, 2025, Hayden filed a motion to compel interrogatory responses in the Texas case that relates to the activities underlying the subpoena. During a May 4 hearing, Hayden’s counsel indicated that the parties had concluded a meet-and-confer process regarding Fleetmind’s production of documents related to Hess’s investigation. Hayden filed a motion to compel in the Texas litigation later that same day.

Broderick noted that courts have transferred quash motions in similar circumstances where the issuing court has overseen discovery and is intimately familiar with the complex facts of the litigation.

To minimize delay, the judge waived the seven-day waiting period set forth in Local Rule 83.1. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.