1. “Does the issuance of an Order compelling a non-party to come from Texas to Delaware to testify at a post-dismissal hearing violate that non-party’s rights under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)?”
2. “Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) prohibit a court from utilizing its inherent authority to compel a non-party who is a resident of Texas to come to Delaware to testify in a post-dismissal hearing?”
3. “Did the District Court err in holding a non-party who resides in Texas in contempt of court for disregarding an Order requiring that non-party to come to Delaware to testify in a post-dismissal hearing?”
1. “The District Court’s order did not conflict with [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 45, because that Rule does not limit the geographical range of a court’s ability to sua sponte issue an order to appear.”
2. “Reading [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 45 as a whole, we conclude that none of these requirements apply to a court’s own order compelling a witness to appear. As a result, neither do the geographic limitations in [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 45(c)(1).”
3. “The District Court’s order to compel Ms. LaPray’s attendance was an appropriate means to investigate potential misconduct involving Backertop, a corporate party of which she is the sole representative . . . . [I]t was not an abuse of discretion to compel Ms. LaPray’s attendance at the July 20, 2023, hearing and hold her in civil contempt of the court when she did not appear.”
