Hamilton v. Moog Inc.
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 41 Motion for Protective Order. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/5/13. (kfinn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00501-REB-MJW
Now before the court is plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26 (Docket No. 41). Plaintiff’s motion involves a subpoena issued to David S.
Bailie, M.D. from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
To the extent a motion seeks to quash or modify a subpoena issued through any
district other than the District of Colorado, this court must deny such request without
prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3)(A), only “the issuing court” may quash or modify a
subpoena. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 141 F.3d 337, 341 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (only the
issuing court has the power to act on its subpoenas); In re Digital Equipment Corp., 949
F.2d 228, 231 (8th Cir. 1991) (court in district where underlying action was pending did
not have jurisdiction to rule on objections to deposition subpoenas obtained in another
district). “Subpoenas are process of the issuing court, and nothing in the rules even
hints that any other court may be given the power to quash or enforce them.” In re
Sealed Case, 141 F.3d at 341 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the court where the
action is pending lacks jurisdiction to rule on subpoenas issued from other courts,
unless there is a transfer or remittance of the matter from the issuing court. See In re
Digital Equipment Corp., 949 F.2d at 231.
Further, the court finds that the issues presented in plaintiff’s motion do not
“extend beyond the specifics of the particular subpoena.” See Rajala v. McGuire
Woods, LLP, No. 08-2638-CM-DJW, 2010 WL 4683979, at *7 (Nov. 12, 2010 D. Kan.).
Plaintiff objects to a number of the document requests made in the subpoena as being
unduly burdensome. Plaintiff also argues some of the requested documents are
protected. In addition, plaintiff objects to the timing of the subpoena. None of these
issues are “central to the case.” Id. Rather, plaintiff’s objections are specific, and
limited, to the subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. As
such, this court lacks jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff’s motion.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion
for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (Docket No. 41) is DENIED
Date: February 5, 2013
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?