## Facts

- Laker Airways Ltd., a British airline later placed in liquidation, brought a consolidated antitrust action in the District of Columbia alleging an international conspiracy to destroy its transatlantic business through predatory pricing and interference with financing.
- In aid of that action, Laker served Rule 45 deposition subpoenas duces tecum in the Southern District of New York on the New York offices of two non-party U.K. financial institutions: Midland Bank plc (New York branch) and Samuel Montagu & Co. Ltd. (New York representative office/agency).
- The subpoenas sought extensive documents concerning Laker’s aircraft financing, including loan-related communications and negotiations.
- Midland and Montagu asserted the requested materials were regularly maintained in their London offices in the United Kingdom, not in New York.
- The non-parties moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) to quash, arguing that service on their New York presence could not compel production of U.K.-maintained records and that compliance would be burdensome and raise foreign confidentiality concerns.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 45 subpoenas served on a foreign bank’s New York branch or representative office can compel a non-party to produce documents regularly maintained in the United Kingdom by its London offices.
2. Whether concerns of burden on non-parties and possible conflict with foreign banking/confidentiality rules weigh against enforcing such subpoenas.

## Decision

- The court granted the motions to quash.
- It held that, as to these non-party foreign banks, documents regularly maintained in the United Kingdom could not be obtained by serving subpoenas on their New York branch or representative office.
- The court indicated that discovery directed to U.K.-maintained records should proceed, if at all, through more suitable cross-border mechanisms.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 45’s compulsory process is constrained in ancillary, non-party discovery, particularly where production would require obtaining documents from foreign offices.
- Service of a subpoena on a domestic branch or representative office of a foreign institution does not, by itself, create an obligation for that local presence to retrieve and produce records maintained and administered abroad.
- Courts apply added caution when discovery targets non-parties whose principal operations and files are outside the United States, especially where production may implicate foreign confidentiality regulations and international comity.
- When foreign sovereign interests are implicated, parties should consider alternative procedures (e.g., letters rogatory or treaty-based evidence methods) rather than attempting to reach foreign records through domestic service.

## Conclusion

The court quashed subpoenas served on the New York offices of two non-party U.K. banks because the requested financing documents were regularly maintained in the United Kingdom, and Rule 45 could not be used to compel their production through domestic branches in a manner that would impose undue non-party burdens and risk conflict with foreign legal interests.


Laker Airways Ltd. v. Pan Am. World Airways, 607 F. Supp. 324 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)