Ugwuonye motion to oppose subpoenas - NigerianMuse

Case 8:09-cv-00658-PJM Document 37 Filed 06/09/2009 Page 2 of 10
1. On April 17, 2009, Defendant Aluko filed a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b), and that motion also challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of
this Court.
2. On May 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal under Rule
41(a)(1)(i).
3. On June 3, 2009, Defendant Aluko served the above-named non-parties
to this case with subpoenas issued by this court commanding them to
produce and permit inspection and copying of “all closing and settlement
documents on the conveyance of the properties” of the Nigerian
Government between the Nigerian Government and certain persons.
4. Service of the subpoenas did not comply with the requirement of Rule
45(b)(1) that a subpoena should not be served by a party in the underlying
suit. That requirement also precludes the attorney to a party from
serving the subpoena. All available indications show that the subpoenas
in issue were served by Mr. Muyiwa Sobo, attorney to a party in this
case, himself. Without any affidavit of service on record, it cannot be
verified that Mr. Sobo complied with the applicable rules on the service of
a subpoena.
5. The above documents and information with respect to which the
defendant has requested production and inspection are privileged,
private or otherwise protected documents which belong to the
Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
6. Further, based on the motions filed or pending before this Court, the
posture of the case of Defendant Aluko is that it has either terminated or
will be terminated as a matter of law. As a result, it is inconceivable that
these subpoenas are intended to serve any purpose related to this case.
7. Even if the case of Aluko has not or is not due to be terminated by this
Court, given the facts in issue in this case, these documents serve no
probative value whatsoever. Even if any probative value could be
articulated, it is outweighed by the propaganda effect upon the Nigerian