Opinion
2:20-cv-01034 MCE AC
03-17-2023
DIANA AKKAWI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KASRA SADR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the court is plaintiffs' motion to compel third-party David Eisenberg to respond to a subpoena. ECF No. 138 (duplicate filed at ECF No. 136). A joint statement was submitted at ECF No. 145. The motion was taken under submission on the papers. ECF No. 157. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1).
The motion will be denied without prejudice because it is procedurally defective. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs subpoenas in federal court. The Rule states that “[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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). The subpoena identifies Irvine, California, as the place of compliance. ECF No. 145 at 29. The city of Irvine, California, is in the Central District of California. The motion filed at ECF No. 138 (duplicate filed at ECF No. 136) is improperly brought in the Eastern District of California, therefore, and is DENIED without prejudice to a motion brought in the proper district.
IT IS SO ORDERED.