ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO TRANSFER MOTION TO COMPEL PURSUANT TO FRCP 45(f) OR ALTERNATIVELY TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL

[Underlying Case No. 3:16-cv-00236 (Northern District)]

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

On January 14, 2019, Defendants Center For Medical Progress, et al. ("Defendants") filed a Motion to Compel Document Production re Subpoena served on third-party subpoena recipients StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston and initiated this civil miscellaneous case. (ECF No. 1.) On January 17, 2019, the Court ordered the moving papers to be served on StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston and set a hearing date of February 27, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. (ECF No. 5.)

On February 7, 2019, StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston filed an Ex Parte Application to Transfer the Motion to Compel ("Ex Parte Application") to the Court that issued the subpoenas and where the main action is pending between Defendants and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al., the Northern District of California. In the alternative, StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston sought an order continuing the February 27, 2019 hearing date for 60 days to allow them to refile their Ex Parte Application as noticed motion. (ECF No. 6.) The court has considered the motion and the opposition filed by Defendant The Center for Medical Progress (ECF No. 8).

Upon review of the Ex Parte Application, the Court finds that third-party subpoena recipients StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston have set forth sufficient grounds to warranted ex parte relief and an order transferring the motion to the Northern District to be heard as part of Case No. 3:16-cv-00236.

This Court is authorized to transfer a subpoena-related motion "to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Both StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston have consented to transfer. Additionally, "[w]hen the issuing court has already ruled on issues presented by a subpoena-related motion, exceptional circumstances exist and the court of compliance may transfer the motion to the issuing court." Moon Mountain Farms, LLC v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Co., 301 F.R.D. 426, 429 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Here, the issuing Court has already ruled on several identical discovery issues or requests, establishing exceptional circumstances.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel Document Production re Subpoena (ECF No.1) be transferred to Northern District of California Case No. 3:16-cv-00236.

IT IS SO ORDERED.