In Santiago v. Neno Research LLC, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in part and denied in part Neno’s motion to enforce a Rule 45 subpoena directed to Plaintiff’s expert, Thomas Jaeb, in a Fair Credit Reporting Act action alleging failures in Neno’s accuracy procedures. The court first rejected Mr. Jaeb’s argument that expert discovery via subpoena is limited only to “facts or data considered,” explaining that Rule 26(a)(2)(B) sets minimum disclosure requirements and does not bar parties from obtaining additional relevant and proportional materials from a testifying expert. As the court noted, “a subpoena is an appropriate means of obtaining relevant and discoverable information and materials from a testifying expert.”

The court enforced several requests seeking documents Mr. Jaeb reviewed, generated, or considered, including materials identified by Bates number and documents reflecting facts, data, and assumptions underlying his opinions. The court found these requests squarely within Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s disclosure obligations and rejected objections that the terms “reviewed,” “received,” or “generated” were vague or overbroad. It also required production of prior expert transcripts because Mr. Jaeb had the legal right to obtain them, noting that “control is defined not only as possession, but as the legal right to obtain the documents requested upon demand.”

However, the court declined to enforce requests seeking materials unrelated to the expert’s opinions, including historical vendor‑testing records, J2 business documents, and communications Mr. Jaeb did not consider. The court emphasized that it “cannot compel production of documents that do not exist” and found that broad requests for vendor‑relationship materials were irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

Accordingly, the court granted the motion only as to requests tied to the expert’s opinions, Rule 26(a)(2)(B) disclosures, and prior expert testimony, and denied the remainder as overbroad, irrelevant, or seeking non‑existent materials.

Reach out to Chris Puente, Director of Operations at CODISCOVR. With more than 25 years of big law experience, Chris leads our eDiscovery delivery team and partners closely with legal teams and clients to develop defensible discovery strategies, implement best-practice workflows and quality controls, and manage complex matters across the full EDRM, from preservation and collection through review and production.