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)

Download PDF
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?