Opinion
2:23-cv-01007-APG-NJK
04-03-2024
TOMAHAWK MANUFACTURING, INC., et al., Plaintiff(s), v. SPHERICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER [Docket Nos. 271, 272]
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is a motion to quash the subpoena for the deposition of nonparty: Alejandro Angulo, which Defendants filed on an emergency basis. Docket No. 272; see also Docket No. 271 (declaration improperly filed as a motion). The motion to quash is DENIED without prejudice.
A motion to quash a subpoena must be filed in “the court for the district where compliance is required.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A). “When it appears that subpoena-related motion practice may have been filed in the wrong district, the Court may raise that potential defect sua sponte.” ; 4R4 Sons, LLC v. Tru G. Wilhelm, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01081-GMN-NJK, 2022 WL 2905468, at *3 • n.3 (D. Nev. July 22, 2022) (citing Gutierrez v. Uni Trans, LLC, 2021 WL 2821071, at *3 (D.N.M. July 7, 2021)). The movant bears the burden of showing that a motion to quash was filed in the correct district. York Holding, Ltd. v. Waid, F.R.D., 2024 WL 1432783, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 3, 2024). When a subpoena-related motion has been filed in the wrong district, courts routinely deny that motion without prejudice to refiling it in the proper tribunal. See, e.g., Europlay Cap. Advisors, LLC v. Does, 323 F.R.D. 628, 629-30 (C.D. Cal. 2018).
The rules provide the potential for transferring a subpoena-related motion from the court1 where compliance is required to the issuing court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(f). The authority to make this decision rests with the court where compliance is required. See id. “As such, this provision does not allow a movant to bypass, in the first instance, the court for the district where compliance is required.” York Holding, 2024 WL 1432783, at *1 n.2 (citing Omnitracs, LLC v.' Platform Sci., Inc., No. 20-cv-958-CAB-DDL, 2023 WL 2815363, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2023)).
In this case, the papers indicate that the deponent is a California barred attorney, who is located in California, and who will be deposed in California. Docket No. 271 at 2-4; Docket No. 271-2. The motion provides no basis on which to conclude that the motion to quash is properly filed in this district. See Docket No. 272.
Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.