Mirasco, Inc. v. Al Dahra ACX Global, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS MOTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO REFILING IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The parties shall show cause on or before August 16, 2017, why Mira scos motion to compel Al Dahra to comply with the amended subpoena should not be denied without prejudice subject to refiling in the Central District of California; The August 16, 2017 hearing on the motion to compel is VACATED; and Mirasco shall serve a copy of this order on Al Dahra no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 14, 2017, and file proof of service with the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/11/2017. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIRASCO, INC.,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:17-mc-00050-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS MOTION
SHOULD NOT BE DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO REFILING IN
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

v.
AL DAHRA ACX GLOBAL, INC.,
Respondent.

DEADLINE: AUGUST 16, 2017
16
ORDER VACATING AUGUST 16, 2017
HEARING

17
18
19

On July 19, 2017, Mirasco, Inc. (“Mirasco”) filed a motion to compel third party Al

20 Dahra ACX Global, Inc. (“Al Dahra”) to comply with the amended subpoena issued on May 3,
21 2017, (“amended subpoena”) in a civil action which is proceeding in the United States District
22 Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (ECF No. 1.) On July 21, 2017, Mirasco filed an
23 amended motion to compel. (ECF No. 3.) On July 24, 2017, the Court set Mirasco’s motion to
24 compel for hearing before the undersigned on August 16, 2017. (ECF No. 4.) On July 24, 2017,
25 Mirasco filed a certificate of service indicating that it had served the Court’s July 24, 2017 order
26 setting the motion to compel for hearing on Al Dahra and on Diaa Ghaly (“Ghaly”), the
27 defendant in the civil action in the Northern District of Georgia. (ECF No. 5.) On August 9,
28 2017, the parties to this discovery dispute filed a joint statement, including a copy of the

1

1 amended subpoena. (ECF No. 8.) On August 9, 2017, Mirasco filed a notice of request to seal
2 documents. (ECF No. 9.)
3

On May 3, 2017, Mirasco served the amended subpoena on Al Dahra. (ECF Nos. 8-5, 8-

4 6.) The subpoena states that production of the documents was to occur on May 19, 2017, at
5 12:00 p.m. at the office of Mirasco’s attorney in Los Angeles, California. (Id.) The subpoena is
6 addressed to “Al Dahra ACX Global, Inc., c/o Registered Agent: Brent Hansston” at an address
7 in Wilmington, California. (Id.)
8

Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i) provides that if an objection is made to a subpoena to produce

9 documents, “[a]t any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
10 court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or
11 inspection.” Further, Rules 45(d)(3)(A) and 45(d)(3)(B) provide that the court for the district
12 where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena in certain circumstances and
13 may do so in other specific circumstances. The nonparty’s interests are protected by having the
14 court in which compliance is required—which, per Rule 45(c), will be a court local to the
15 nonparty—handle disputes over compliance.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (Notes to 2013

16 Amendments) (“To protect local nonparties, local resolution of disputes about subpoenas is
17 assured by the limitations of Rule 45(c) and the requirements in Rules 45(d) and (e) that the
18 motions be made in the court in which compliance is required under Rule 45(c).”).
19

Here, the amended subpoena states that the designated place of production is in Los

20 Angeles, California, and that the location of Al Dahra is in Wilmington, California, which are
21 both in Los Angeles County. (ECF Nos. 8-5, 8-6.) Therefore, it appears that the Central District
22 of California is the court for the district where compliance is required. The parties shall show
23 cause on or before August 16, 2017, why Mirasco’s motion to compel Al Dahra to comply with
24 the amended subpoena should not be denied without prejudice subject to refiling in the Central
25 District of California, and the Court shall vacate the August 16, 2017 hearing.
26

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1.

28

The parties shall show cause on or before August 16, 2017, why Mirasco’s
motion to compel Al Dahra to comply with the amended subpoena should not be

2

denied without prejudice subject to refiling in the Central District of California;

1
2

2.

The August 16, 2017 hearing on the motion to compel is VACATED; and

3

3.

Mirasco shall serve a copy of this order on Al Dahra no later than 5:00 p.m. on
August 14, 2017, and file proof of service with the Court.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated:

August 11, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3