From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Braintree Labs. Inc. v. McKesson Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 19, 2011
CIV. NO. S-11-0077 JAM GGH (E.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2011)

Opinion

CIV. NO. S-11-0077 JAM GGH

09-19-2011

BRAINTREE LABORATORIES, INC., Movant, v. McKESSON CORPORATION, Nonmovant.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Presently before the court is Braintree Laboratories, Inc.'s ("Braintree") motion to compel production of documents from third party McKesson Corporation ("McKesson") pursuant to a subpoena served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. On September 15, 2011, along with Braintree's motion, the parties filed a joint statement regarding their discovery disagreement in accordance with L.R. 251. The motion is currently set for hearing on September 22, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.

In the joint statement, Braintree states that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2)(C), it "issued the subpoena 'from the court for the district where the production or inspection is to be made,' which in this case is this Court." (Dkt. No. 12, at 8.) However, it also notes that third party McKesson is based in San Francisco, California (which is located in the Northern District of California). Braintree is based in Massachussetts. Therefore, it is not clear why the motion is being brought in the Eastern District of California. The subpoena attached to the joint statement as Exhibit 1 does not shed light on the matter, because Braintree apparently inadvertently attached the wrong subpoena. The subpoena attached as Exhibit 1 to the joint statement is a subpoena to a different entity issued from the Southern District of Ohio. (Dkt. No. 12, Ex. 1.)

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Braintree shall show cause within five (5) calendar days of the service of this order why its motion was properly brought in the Eastern District of California. Braintree shall also file a copy of the correct subpoena along with its response to this order. In the event that the motion was erroneously filed in this District, Braintree shall instead file a notice withdrawing the motion.

2. The hearing on Braintree's motion (Dkt. No. 12) currently set for September 22, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. is vacated. If the order to show cause is discharged, Braintree will be permitted to re-notice the hearing on the next available calendar date upon seven (7) days' notice.

Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/wvr

Braintree.0077.osc.wpd


Summaries of

Braintree Labs. Inc. v. McKesson Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 19, 2011
CIV. NO. S-11-0077 JAM GGH (E.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2011)
Case details for

Braintree Labs. Inc. v. McKesson Corp.

Case Details

Full title:BRAINTREE LABORATORIES, INC., Movant, v. McKESSON CORPORATION, Nonmovant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 19, 2011

Citations

CIV. NO. S-11-0077 JAM GGH (E.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2011)