Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, 18-cv-1298-BAS-AGS. (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200214b48
Visitors: 30
Filed: Feb. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH (ECF No. 44) ANDREW G. SCHOPLER , Magistrate Judge . Defendants move to quash twelve subpoenas that plaintiffs have served on third parties. (ECF No. 44-1, at 4.) But only "the issuing court, and not the court where the underlying action is pending, has the authority to consider motions to quash or modify subpoenas under [Rule 45]." S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829 , 832 (9th Cir. 2011). None of these subpoenas were issued in the South
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH (ECF No. 44) ANDREW G. SCHOPLER , Magistrate Judge . Defendants move to quash twelve subpoenas that plaintiffs have served on third parties. (ECF No. 44-1, at 4.) But only "the issuing court, and not the court where the underlying action is pending, has the authority to consider motions to quash or modify subpoenas under [Rule 45]." S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829 , 832 (9th Cir. 2011). None of these subpoenas were issued in the Southe..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH (ECF No. 44)
ANDREW G. SCHOPLER, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants move to quash twelve subpoenas that plaintiffs have served on third parties. (ECF No. 44-1, at 4.) But only "the issuing court, and not the court where the underlying action is pending, has the authority to consider motions to quash or modify subpoenas under [Rule 45]." S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 2011). None of these subpoenas were issued in the Southern District of California. (See ECF No. 44-5, at 3.) Because this district is not "the district where compliance is required," this Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on defendants' motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A).
Thus, defendants' motion is DENIED without prejudice to being refiled in the appropriate districts.
Source: Leagle
