Rule 45.Subpoena
Last amended July 1, 2021 · Last verified July 1, 2026
Full Text of Rule 45
Advisory Committee Comments
Advisory Committee Comment—2006 Amendment
Rule 45 is replaced, virtually in its entirety, by its federal counterpart. Provisions of the federal rule that do not apply in state court practice are deleted or replaced by comparable provisions consistent with current Minnesota practice. The new rule recognizes the scope of the subpoena power in the existing rule and does not significantly change it. Portions of the federal rule not relevant to state practice have been deleted. The rule adopts the language of the federal rules referring to the court where an action is pending. Because Minnesota allows actions to be commenced by service, the action is “pending” before the court named in the caption after service even though it is not on file with the court. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01. The rule is not intended to change the existing practice that permitted subpoenas to be issued even though an action had not been filed.
The most significant “new” provisions of the rule are the authorization of issuance of subpoenas by attorneys as officers of the court (Rule 45.01(c)) and the adoption of a mechanism for requiring production of documents without requiring a deposition to be conducted (Rule 45.01(a)(3)). The rule retains the provisions of former Rule 45.06, which provide for expenses of non-parties put to particular expense of complying with a subpoena. Those provisions are now bifurcated, with portions relating to notice of the right to costs in Rule 45.01, dealing with the form of subpoenas, and the provision requiring payment in Rule 45.03(d). Additionally, Rule 45.03(a) places an affirmative duty on the attorney issuing or serving a subpoena to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on the person receiving it.
Advisory Committee Comment—2007 Amendment
Rule 45.01 is amended to add a process, in Rule 45.01(d), for issuance of a subpoena to compel attendance in Minnesota at a deposition in an action pending in another jurisdiction. The procedure in this section essentially follows that contained in former Rule 45.04(a), which was abrogated in 2005. Rule 45.01(e) is a new rule intended to clarify the existing rule because of continuing confusion over the need to provide notice to all parties before issuance of a subpoena for pretrial discovery. Existing Rule 45.02(a) explicitly requires notice, but that provision has been overlooked in a number of instances reported to the advisory committee. Accordingly, Rule 45.01(e) is included to make the requirement of notice more prominent and to make it clearly apply to every use of a subpoena prior to trial. The rule does not specify the form of notice required, but it would normally be accomplished by providing either a copy of the subpoena at the time it is served on the non-party or by unambiguous notice in some other way that a non-party is being subpoenaed. Rule 45.02(d) is amended to establish an explicit deadline for making arrangements for compensation by a party receiving a subpoena that requires only the production of documents without a deposition. By adding the words “commanded production or” to the first sentence, the rule applies explicitly to this situation, and establishes the same deadline as for a deposition. Rule 45 is also amended to include provisions for use of subpoenas to obtain discovery of electronically stored information. These amendments relate to the discovery of electronically stored information, and generally just incorporate into Rule 45 for subpoena practice the procedures of Rules 26, 30, 33, 34, and 37 for discovery from parties.
Advisory Committee Comment—2010 Amendment
Rule 45 is amended in several ways to prevent misuse of subpoenas. These amendments are consistent with the purpose of two provisions of the existing rule. Under Rule 45.01(e), notice of issuance of a subpoena is required in order that all parties have an opportunity to participate in the production and to curtail use of a subpoena for ex parte investigation. Rule 45.03(a) explicitly recognizes that the costs of discovery from non- parties should be borne, to the extent feasible, by the parties to the action and the burden on subpoenaed parties should be minimized. The amendment in 2010 adds language to Rule 45.02(a) that is intended to make even more explicit the proper notice for use of a subpoena for production of documents, etc. Rule 45.04(a) is amended by the addition of paragraph (5) that is intended to reinforce that the proper use of a subpoena for production is to obtain information for use by all parties to the litigation, and not for ex parte use by a single party. Once a subpoena
is issued to a non-party, information produced or testimony by that non-party must be made available to all parties. The new language also facilitates the orderly production of information. Rule 45 was amended in 2006 to permit use of subpoenas to require production of documents and other information from non-parties without requiring a deposition to be scheduled and, indeed, without even requiring a personal appearance. See Rule 45.03(b). Where the non-party and the party that issued a subpoena make alternative arrangements for production in response to the subpoena—which may be entirely proper— the potential exists that the production would occur without the knowledge of the other parties to the action. That production, without notice to the parties, is improper and essentially prevents participation by the parties who had received notice of another time of production. The amended rule places a duty on the party issuing the subpoena either to arrange production at a time agreeable to all parties and the non-party or to give notice to the other parties. The amended rule is intended to create a streamlined process that minimizes the burdens of discovery on non-parties and reinforces the rights of all parties to participate in court-sanctioned discovery on an equal footing. There may still be circumstances where other parties will want to serve separate subpoenas to the same non-party, either to request additional documents or inspection or copying, or to obtain documents in a different format. Ideally, the parties will coordinate their efforts to minimize the costs and other burdens of production on the person receiving a subpoena. Notice of the intention to comply with a subpoena in some manner other than that noticed in the subpoena is important because one of the parties may have valid objections to the production taking place at all. Under the revised rule, no production can properly occur without all parties having at least seven days’ notice, providing any party the opportunity either to participate in the production or to seek a protective order to prevent the production from taking place. Because of the expedited hearing requirement for commitment proceedings under Minn. Stat. ch. 253B, subpoenas for production in those proceedings are subject to a 24-hour notice requirement as provided in a new Rule 25 added to the Special Rules of Procedure Governing Proceedings Under the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act.
Advisory Committee Comments—2015 Amendments
Rule 45.06 is a new rule, recommended to adopt the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act, promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2007. This rule allows issuance of a subpoena in Minnesota based upon the proper issuance and service of a subpoena under the authority of another state. If a Minnesota subpoena is issued, the procedures of Rule 45 apply to the service and enforcement of that subpoena and other procedures relating to it. Notice must be provided to all other parties to the action, and the form of subpoena must conform to Minnesota law. Minnesota citizens and residents are entitled to the full protection of Minnesota’s rules even where the subpoena is initiated for use in foreign proceedings. Although adopted as a rule, rather than a statute, recognizing the Minnesota Supreme Court’s inherent and exclusive authority over matters of court procedure, the rule retains the operative provisions of the Uniform Act. Like uniform laws, this rule should be interpreted to accomplish uniformity among the states and should be construed to promote that purpose. See Minn. Stat. § 645.22. Construction of the uniform law by other states may accordingly be relevant to its interpretation in Minnesota. See generally Layne-Minn. Co. v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 266 Minn. 284, 123 N.W.2d 371 (1963).
Advisory Committee Comment—2021 Amendments
Rule 45.06 is amended in two important ways. The amended rule extends the authority for Minnesota attorneys to sign and issue subpoenas to those used for discovery for cases pending in other states. The rule does not modify the procedural prerequisites for issuance of a Minnesota subpoena, other than allowing a Minnesota lawyer to take those steps and issue the subpoena. This authority to issue subpoenas is not extended to self- represented litigants.
Amendment History
- (Amended effective July 1, 2007.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2010.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2007.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2021.)
- (Adopted effective July 1, 2021.)
Plain-English Summary
A subpoena is the tool a party uses to force someone who is not cooperating to show up and testify, or to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things for inspection. Rule 45 spells out what a subpoena must say, who can issue one, and how it has to be delivered. In Minnesota, either the court administrator issues a signed blank subpoena that the requesting party fills out, or an attorney can issue and sign one directly as an officer of the court. Whoever serves it must be an adult who is not a party to the case, and if the subpoena commands someone to appear, the server generally has to hand over one day’s witness fee and mileage at the same time.
The rule also protects the person being subpoenaed. Anyone issuing or serving a subpoena has a duty to avoid placing an undue burden or needless expense on the recipient, and a court can sanction a party or lawyer who ignores that duty. A person asked to produce documents without also being asked to testify does not have to show up in person, and can object in writing within a set window instead of complying automatically. If an objection is filed, the party who wants the material has to go to court and ask for an order compelling production. The rule also lets a court quash or modify a subpoena that gives too little time to comply, forces someone to travel too far, demands privileged material, or is oppressive.
Separate provisions cover claims of privilege over produced material, contempt for ignoring a valid subpoena, and how Minnesota courts handle subpoenas connected to lawsuits pending in other states. Taken together, the rule tries to balance a litigant’s need for evidence against the real burden that a subpoena places on someone who is not part of the lawsuit.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can issue a subpoena in Minnesota state court?
The court administrator can issue a subpoena signed but otherwise blank for a party to fill out, and an attorney admitted to practice can also issue and sign one directly as an officer of the court.
Do I have to pay a witness anything when I serve a subpoena on them?
If the subpoena commands the person to attend, the server must tender one day’s attendance fee and the mileage allowed by law at the time of service, unless the subpoena is issued on behalf of the state of Minnesota or one of its agencies.
What can I do if I think a subpoena is asking too much of me?
You may serve a written objection to producing the material within 14 days of service, or before the compliance date if that is sooner, and the requesting party then has to move the court for an order compelling production if it wants to proceed.
Can a subpoena force someone to travel a long distance?
A subpoena generally cannot require a non-party or an officer of a party to travel outside the county where that person lives, works, or regularly does business, except that a person may be commanded to travel from anywhere within Minnesota to attend trial.
What happens if someone ignores a subpoena?
Failure to obey a subpoena without an adequate excuse can be treated as contempt of the court that issued it, though an excuse is considered adequate if the subpoena improperly demands travel beyond the limits the rule allows.
Advisory Committee Comment—2021 Amendments
Rule 45.04 is amended to clarify the application of privilege law in depositions taken under Rule 45.06 for depositions taken for litigation pending in a jurisdiction
outside of Minnesota. The procedure for obtaining or issuance of a subpoena under Rule 45.06 is governed by Minnesota law, but the rule is amended to make it clear that in situations involving a conflict of substantive law, such as whether a question is governed by a recognized privilege, resolution depends on the application of Minnesota’s conflict- of-law principles. This analysis might, in some cases, require the application of another jurisdiction’s substantive law. See, e.g., Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 161–71, 203 N.W.2d 408, 414–17 (1973); see generally William B. Danforth, Developments in the Minnesota Law of Conflict of Laws, 8 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 785 (1982). Rule 45.06 itself is amended to provide for the issuance of a subpoena by a Minnesota attorney of record in a case, obviating issuance of the subpoena by the court administrator. This procedure is already allowed for subpoenas in cases pending in Minnesota state courts. The rule does not modify in any way the requirements for issuance of a subpoena; it merely allows a Minnesota attorney to sign and issue it if those requirements are met.