Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Monsanto Co.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-IA-00530-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-04-2005
Opinion Author: Carlson, J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Issuance of subpoenas duces tecum on nonresident nonparties - Section 79-4-15.10(b) - M.R.C.P. 45(c)(1)
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-27-2004
Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court
Judge: Larry O. Lewis
Disposition: Trial court entered orders denying motions to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued at the request of a party to this litigation for service upon non-resident non-parties commanding them to produce documents located outside the State of Mississippi.
Case Number: 2000-1
  Consolidated: Consolidated with 2004-IA-00711-SCT Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Company; Bolivar Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: 2000-1; Ruling Date: 03/24/2004; Ruling Judge: Larry Lewis; Consolidated with 2004-IA-00709-SCT Dow Agrosciences, LLC v. Monsanto Company; Bolivar Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: 2000-1; Ruling Date: 03/24/2004; Ruling Judge: Larry Lewis

Note: Interlocutory Appeal

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.




LAWRENCE D. WADE, ROECHELLE RYANN MORGAN, DAN W. WEBB



 

Appellee: Monsanto Company CHARLES M. MERKEL, JR., J. COLLINS WOHNER, JR., WILLIAM F. GOODMAN, JR., BENNIE LENARD RICHARD, CHARLES VICTOR McTEER  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Contract - Issuance of subpoenas duces tecum on nonresident nonparties - Section 79-4-15.10(b) - M.R.C.P. 45(c)(1)

Summary of the Facts: Delta and Pine Land Company sued the Monsanto Company in the Circuit of the First Judicial District of Bolivar County. The complaint contains numerous allegations of breach of contract for which Delta seeks a judgment against Monsanto for at least $2 billion in actual and punitive damages. After the suit was commenced, extensive discovery occurred between the parties. Some of this discovery was commenced and obtained by way of the issuance of letters rogatory and commissions for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum. In connection with this pending litigation, Monsanto caused subpoenas duces tecum to be issued and served upon nonresident nonparties Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Dow AgroSciences LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., through their registered agents in the State of Mississippi. These nonparties filed motions to quash these subpoenas duces tecum. The trial court entered orders denying the motions to quash and granted these nonparties’ motions for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court granted the nonparties’ petition for an interlocutory appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Syngenta Crop, Syngenta Seeds, and Dow are not parties to the underlying litigation. Syngenta Crop is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina. Thus, Syngenta Crop is neither incorporated in nor maintains its principal place of business in Mississippi. The record reveals that other than having a registered agent for service of process in Mississippi, Syngenta Crop’s only contact with this state is its ownership of a small research facility with a few employees in Leland, Mississippi. Syngenta Seeds is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Golden Valley, Minnesota. Thus, Syngenta Seeds is neither incorporated in nor maintains its principal place of business in Mississippi. Syngenta Seeds does not own or maintain offices, production facilities or other property in Mississippi. Dow is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. Thus, Dow is neither incorporated in nor maintains its principal place of business in Mississippi. Dow does not own or maintain offices, production facilities or records within the state of Mississippi, nor does it have employees in this state. The circuit court determined that because a foreign corporation with a valid certificate of authority has the same but no greater rights and has the same but no greater privileges and is subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties and liabilities now or later imposed on a domestic corporation, a qualified nonresident corporation must also comply with a properly-issued subpoena. This is a case of first impression in this state. The unequivocal language of Section 79-4-15.10(b) provides for service upon a foreign corporation by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the secretary of the foreign corporation if the foreign corporation has no registered agent, has withdrawn from transacting business in the state, or has had its certificate of authority revoked. However, as correctly pointed out by Syngenta Crop, Syngenta Seeds and Dow, M.R.C.P. 45 (c)(1) does not provide for service of subpoena other than by way of personal service. Reading section 79-4-15.10(a) and section 79-4-15.10(b), as well as our rules of civil procedure, in pari materia, there is no doubt that the statutory language stating that a foreign corporation’s registered agent is that corporation’s agent “for service of process, notice or demand required or permitted by law to be served on the foreign corporation,” does not authorize a party’s service of a subpoena duces tecum upon nonresident nonparties. Since there is no statutory or other authority which would allow a Mississippi court to compel Syngenta Crop, Syngenta Seeds and Dow, as nonresident nonparties, to produce documents located outside of this state, the orders denying the motions to quash subpoenas duces tecum must be reversed. Notwithstanding this, Monsanto is not without recourse. The commission process has been utilized by the parties and the trial court on numerous occasions. Thus, Monsanto, or any party, has available the process whereby the circuit court could consider the issuance of a commission to the appropriate out-of-state forum requesting that a subpoena duces tecum issue from that forum for service on the nonparty resident in that state.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court