Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. v. Soukup

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTION AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA by Hon. William Alsup denying 1 Motion quash.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

12

No. C 12-80106 WHA

SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR PROTECTION AND
TO QUASH SUBPOENA

v.

13

KIMBERLEY SOUKUP,

14

Defendant.
/

15
16

Defendant Kimberley Soukup has filed a “motion for protection and objection to

17

document subpoenas.” Specifically, defendant “requests that the Court GRANT Defendant’s

18

Motion for Protection, QUASH Plaintiff’s document subpoena to Facebook, Inc., and grant such

19

other and further relief to which she may be justly entitled” (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff Sedgwick

20

Claims Management Services, Inc., opposes on the ground that this Court is not empowered to

21

rule on the instant motion because the subpoena to Facebook, Inc., was issued by another court.

22

Defendant has not replied.

23

The underlying action is proceeding in the Northern District of Texas. The subpoena that

24

defendant seeks to quash, however, was issued by the United States District Court for the

25

Eastern District of California. According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3), it is the

26
27
28

1

“issuing court” that has the power to quash or modify a subpoena. This Court was not the

2

issuing court and will not quash or modify a subpoena issued by another court. The motion is,

3

therefore, DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: June 18, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2