Bryan Mick v. Barrett Gibbons

Circuit 8Apr 1, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 65/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Reversed

The Eighth Circuit reversed a district court order compelling the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP) to sit for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, holding that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity can bar enforcement of disruptive third-party discovery subpoenas on a state agency. The court characterized earlier broad language in In re Missouri DNR as dicta and adopted a fact-specific test that looks to whether the discovery request infringes state autonomy or threatens the state treasury.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity categorically bars federal courts from compelling non-party state agencies to comply with third-party discovery subpoenas (e.g., Rule 30(b)(6) depositions).

Circuit Positions

Circuit 8(this circuit)

Eleventh Amendment does not categorically bar third-party subpoenas; courts must allow non-disruptive discovery that does not infringe state autonomy or treasury.

Circuit 4Circuit 5

State sovereign immunity provides absolute protection from third-party subpoenas; state agencies cannot be compelled to comply.

Conflict Summary

The Eighth Circuit applies a fact-intensive test permitting non-disruptive subpoenas that do not meaningfully interfere with state autonomy or finances, whereas the Fourth and Fifth Circuits adopt a categorical rule that sovereign immunity completely bars third-party subpoenas against state entities absent waiver or abrogation.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Nebraska State Patrol
Appellee:Bryan S. Mick, Personal Representative of the Estate of Print Zutavern