BRIDGE v. CREDIT ONE FINANCIAL, 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150609879
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to quash a subpoena served by Plaintiff upon non-party NCO Financial Systems. Docket No. 58. Plaintiff filed a response and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 70, 73. In its reply, Defendant concedes that the "[s]ubpoena to NCO identifies Pennsylvania as the location for compliance." Docket No. 73, at 1-2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3), this Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve a motion to quash
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to quash a subpoena served by Plaintiff upon non-party NCO Financial Systems. Docket No. 58. Plaintiff filed a response and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 70, 73. In its reply, Defendant concedes that the "[s]ubpoena to NCO identifies Pennsylvania as the location for compliance." Docket No. 73, at 1-2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3), this Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve a motion to quash ..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to quash a subpoena served by Plaintiff upon non-party NCO Financial Systems. Docket No. 58. Plaintiff filed a response and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 70, 73. In its reply, Defendant concedes that the "[s]ubpoena to NCO identifies Pennsylvania as the location for compliance." Docket No. 73, at 1-2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3), this Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve a motion to quash when the place where compliance is required is located in another district. See Agincourt Gaming, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., 2014 WL 4079555, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2014); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)-(B) (a motion to quash or modify a subpoena is directed to "the court for the district where compliance is required"). Defendant refiled the motion to quash in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, on May 19, 2015, that motion was adjudicated. See Docket No. 83-1. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to quash (Docket No. 58) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
