ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on "Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Milliman Appraisal Documents." Dkt. # 1. The Court has reviewed the motion, the parties' memoranda, the attached exhibits, and the remainder of the record.1 For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

This motion concerns plaintiffs' attempts to obtain documents involved in another case they are litigating before Judge Richard L. Young of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. See Burnett v. Conseco Life Ins. Co., Case No. C18-200RLY (S.D. Ind. Jan. 25, 2018). Plaintiffs are former life insurance policyholders who sued Conseco Life Insurance Company and its parent entities (collectively "Conseco Life"), alleging Conseco Life breached the relevant insurance contracts by increasing premiums in order to force policyholders to abandon their policies. Before the premium hikes, Conseco Life engaged Milliman, Inc. to produce an actuarial appraisal report (the "Appraisal") that plaintiffs assert contains information relevant to their claims.

Plaintiffs initially sought the Appraisal from Conseco Life, but apparently have obtained only unsatisfactorily redacted copies. See S.D. Ind. Dkt. # 118 at 9-10. For that reason, plaintiffs have pursued the Appraisal from Milliman too. In June 2014, plaintiffs served Milliman with a subpoena seeking a copy of the Appraisal, but various developments in the case delayed the subpoena's enforcement for several years. Plaintiffs filed this cause seeking to enforce the subpoena against Milliman here in the district where it is headquartered. Plaintiffs continue to seek the Appraisal from Conseco Life and have filed a similar motion to compel in the Indiana case before Judge Young. See S.D. Ind. Dkt. # 118. As of the issuance of this order, that motion remains pending. Milliman opposes plaintiffs' motion, Dkt. # 9, but has not sought to quash the subpoena or transfer this matter.2

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Civil Rule 45 allows parties to serve persons with subpoenas that include a "command to produce" documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii), (D). In accordance with Rule 45, "a nonparty may be compelled to produce documents and tangible things or to permit an inspection." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c). There is no explicit rule that a party must first seek those documents from an opposing party, but courts generally "must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by [the Rules] if it determines . . . the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).

Because this issue will be squarely addressed in the motion pending before Judge Young in the Indiana litigation, the Court concludes that it is more appropriate to await the issue's resolution in that case. In general, "[t]he presiding court is in th[e] best position to determine . . . underlying discovery dispute[s]," Cabell v. Zorro Prods., Inc., 294 F.R.D. 604, 607 (W.D. Wash. 2013), and Judge Young has managed the case and its substantive issues thus far. In addition, plaintiffs can obtain the material they seek from Conseco Life and deciding the issue in the underlying litigation serves the Court's duty to limit discovery that is cumulative or more conveniently obtained from some other source. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). The Court will accordingly deny plaintiffs' motion to compel at this time given the issue's likely resolution in the Indiana case.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion, Dkt. # 1, is DENIED, without prejudice to plaintiffs seeking relief again in this Court if it is not otherwise available.