ORDER REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS MOTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO REFILING IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

On July 19, 2017, Mirasco, Inc. ("Mirasco") filed a motion to compel third party Al Dahra ACX Global, Inc. ("Al Dahra") to comply with the amended subpoena issued on May 3, 2017, ("amended subpoena") in a civil action which is proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (ECF No. 1.) On July 21, 2017, Mirasco filed an amended motion to compel. (ECF No. 3.) On July 24, 2017, the Court set Mirasco's motion to compel for hearing before the undersigned on August 16, 2017. (ECF No. 4.) On July 24, 2017, Mirasco filed a certificate of service indicating that it had served the Court's July 24, 2017 order setting the motion to compel for hearing on Al Dahra and on Diaa Ghaly ("Ghaly"), the defendant in the civil action in the Northern District of Georgia. (ECF No. 5.) On August 9, 2017, the parties to this discovery dispute filed a joint statement, including a copy of the amended subpoena. (ECF No. 8.) On August 9, 2017, Mirasco filed a notice of request to seal documents. (ECF No. 9.)

On May 3, 2017, Mirasco served the amended subpoena on Al Dahra. (ECF Nos. 8-5, 8-6.) The subpoena states that production of the documents was to occur on May 19, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. at the office of Mirasco's attorney in Los Angeles, California. (Id.) The subpoena is addressed to "Al Dahra ACX Global, Inc., c/o Registered Agent: Brent Hansston" at an address in Wilmington, California. (Id.)

Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i) provides that if an objection is made to a subpoena to produce documents, "[a]t any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection." Further, Rules 45(d)(3)(A) and 45(d)(3)(B) provide that the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena in certain circumstances and may do so in other specific circumstances. The nonparty's interests are protected by having the court in which compliance is required—which, per Rule 45(c), will be a court local to the nonparty—handle disputes over compliance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (Notes to 2013 Amendments) ("To protect local nonparties, local resolution of disputes about subpoenas is assured by the limitations of Rule 45(c) and the requirements in Rules 45(d) and (e) that the motions be made in the court in which compliance is required under Rule 45(c).").

Here, the amended subpoena states that the designated place of production is in Los Angeles, California, and that the location of Al Dahra is in Wilmington, California, which are both in Los Angeles County. (ECF Nos. 8-5, 8-6.) Therefore, it appears that the Central District of California is the court for the district where compliance is required. The parties shall show cause on or before August 16, 2017, why Mirasco's motion to compel Al Dahra to comply with the amended subpoena should not be denied without prejudice subject to refiling in the Central District of California, and the Court shall vacate the August 16, 2017 hearing.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.