JEFFERSON CITY — A federal judge in Missouri has granted a motion to quash subpoenas issued to a non-party witness in an employment retaliation lawsuit brought by a former employee, ruling that the subpoenas violated federal procedural rules governing depositions and compliance deadlines.
In an order dated April 30, U.S. District Judge Douglas Harpool of the Western District of Missouri found that a subpoena issued February 17 to Justin Rechter by EquipmentShare.com improperly required him to travel approximately 296 miles from his home in Crown Point, Ind., to St. Louis for a deposition.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 limits subpoenaed witnesses to appearing within 100 miles of where they reside, work or regularly conduct business.
The underlying lawsuit was filed by Searra Priolo, a former senior recruiter for EqipmentShare who worked remotely from Monmouth County, N.J.
According to the order, Priolo alleges she engaged in protected activity by complaining that Rechter’s hiring practices were discriminatory.
She claims the company later terminated her employment on or about Feb. 16, 2024, allegedly for insubordination, but contends that explanation was a pretext for discrimination and retaliation.
Priolo’s complaint includes four claims: retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and two retaliation claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act related to age and disability discrimination.
The subpoena at issue required Rechter to appear for a deposition on Feb. 24, in St. Louis and to produce several categories of documents, including communications with Priolo regarding alleged reports of age or disability discrimination and communications concerning the use of DISC assessments.
Rechter moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that it violated Rule 45 because it required travel beyond the permissible distance, failed to allow a reasonable time for compliance and did not include reimbursement for travel costs.
The court agreed that the travel distance alone rendered the subpoena invalid.
Harpool noted that the subpoena was served at Rechter’s Indiana residence and directed him to appear in St. Louis, a distance well beyond the 100-mile limit established under federal rules.
Because the court granted the motion on that basis, it declined to rule on Rechter’s remaining objections regarding timing and travel expenses.
The order also addressed a separate dispute over an alleged second subpoena connected to a March 13, Zoom deposition.
According to the court, the parties disagreed over whether Rechter had ever properly received the subpoena.
The record included email exchanges between attorneys discussing whether Rechter’s counsel would accept service on his behalf and whether a notice of deposition would be sent.
In later correspondence cited by the court, Rechter’s attorney stated that neither he nor his client had received the subpoena and requested proof that it had been emailed previously.
Defense counsel responded that the deposition would proceed and asserted that the subpoena had already been forwarded and that the required payment had been mailed because the deposition was to occur remotely via Zoom.
Harpool found that the record did not establish timely service of the subpoena.
The court stated that even assuming the subpoena was served on March 12, one day before the scheduled deposition, that timing did not provide a reasonable opportunity to comply as required by Rule 45.
The judge also pointed to an earlier Feb. 23 email from Rechter’s counsel objecting to the deposition and stating that, absent a court order, there was “no interest in rescheduling” the deposition.
The court characterized the dispute as appearing to stem from “miscommunication,” but declined to enforce the alleged Feb. 26 subpoena because of the procedural deficiencies.
Although the court granted Rechter’s motion to quash both subpoenas, the order leaves open the possibility that EquipmentShare may seek another deposition.
Harpool wrote that if the company wishes to pursue a second deposition of Rechter, it may file a motion to extend scheduling deadlines and attempt service again in compliance with Rule 45.
The court concluded by encouraging the parties to resolve disputes cooperatively and comply with deposition requests moving forward.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division case number: 2:25-cv-04013
