Opinion
Case No. 3:16-cv-00627-MMD-WGC
01-10-2020
AIRELL JOSHUA THOMAS SAWYER, Petitioner, v. WARDEN BAKER, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
The Court granted Petitioner Airell Joshua Thomas Sawyer leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 37) and later extended the deadline for completing discovery to December 16, 2019 (ECF No. 47). Petitioner has filed an unopposed motion for extension of this deadline. (ECF No. 52.) The Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated good cause and will grant the motion for extension.
In terms of authorized discovery, deponent Bryan Tully has filed a motion to quash subpoena ("Motion") (ECF No. 49), and Petitioner opposes (ECF No. 50). The Court agrees with Petitioner's first procedural argument—the Motion is filed in the wrong court. (ECF No. 50 at 6-7.) Tully resides in Cypress, California; he is employed in Carson, California. Tully's deposition was scheduled to be conducted in Tustin, California. (ECF No. 50 at 6.) Tustin is within 100 miles of both Tully's residence and his place of employment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A). Tustin is in Orange County. Orange County is in the Southern Division of the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(3). Tully must file his motion in the court for the district where compliance is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). In this case, that is the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). Consequently, this Court denies without prejudice the motion to quash subpoena. ///
It is therefore ordered that deponent Bryan Tully's motion to quash subpoena (ECF No. 49) is denied without prejudice.
It is further ordered that Petitioner's unopposed motion for extension of time in which to complete discovery (ECF No. 52) is granted. Discovery must be completed within 90 days of the disposition of Petitioner's motion to compel filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
DATED THIS 10th day of January 2020.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE