E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. Moses & Singer, LLP et al
Filing
178
ORDER RE: SUBPOENA DISCOVERY DISPUTE (Dkt. No. 177). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 7/30/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
E-PASS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: SUBPOENA DISCOVERY
DISPUTE (Dkt. No. 177)
v.
14
15
16
Case No. C09-5967 EMC (JSC)
MOSES & SINGER, LLP, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
Now pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter regarding Plaintiff’s
19
objections to Defendants’ subpoena for records from Citibank . (Dkt. No. 177). Defendants
20
served a subpoena issued by a court in the Eastern District of New York on Citibank in Long
21
Island City, New York. (Dkt. No. 177, Ex. A.) Plaintiff officially objected to the subpoena
22
and directed Citibank not to comply absent a court order or stipulation from the parties. (Dkt.
23
No. 177, Ex. B.) The parties were unable to come to an agreement, and Defendants now
24
petition the Court for a decision on the proper scope of the subpoena.
25
Defendants frame the dispute as an “objection” by Plaintiff that this Court can resolve
26
such that “Citibank may voluntarily comply with the subpoena.” (Dkt. No. 177 at 1.) Plaintiff
27
counters that Defendants are essentially asking the Court “to enforce the New York subpoena
28
it served to a New York corporation.” (Id. at 5.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Citibank
1
has refused to comply with the subpoena except to the extent Plaintiff agrees. Defendants are
2
therefore seeking to compel enforcement with the subpoena because they believe Citibank’s
3
objections are unfounded (because Plaintiff’s objections are unfounded). Federal Rule of
4
Civil Procedure 45 gives the “issuing court” exclusive jurisdiction to compel production. Fed.
5
R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B); S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 2011).
6
It also gives the “issuing court” exclusive jurisdiction to hold the served non-party in
7
contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e).
8
9
To the extent the parties’ dispute is framed as a request to quash or modify the
subpoena as overbroad, Rule 45(c) also provides that the issuing court has exclusive
Northern District of California
jurisdiction to quash or modify the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A); CMKM Diamonds,
11
United States District Court
10
Inc., 656 F.3d at 831(holding that “the issuing court, and not the court where the underlying
12
action is pending, has the authority to consider motions to quash or modify subpoenas).
13
Defendants are, in effect, asking the Court to issue an advisory opinion on the scope of
14
the subpoena. This Court does not have authority to issue such a decision. Accordingly,
15
Defendants’ request that the Court order Plaintiff to withdraw its objections to the subpoena as
16
communicated to Citibank is DENIED.
17
This Order disposes of Document No. 177.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated: July 30, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?