United States Gypsum Company v. Dependable, LLC

Filing 3

ORDER denying without prejudice #1 United States Gypsum Company's Motion to Compel Enforcement of USG's Third-Party Subpoena to Level-Tech Systems of Florida, Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Samuel J. Horovitz on 1/7/2025. (KTQ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES GYPSUM
COMPANY, etc.
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.

CASE NO. 3:24-mc-21-MMH-SJH

DEPENDABLE, LLC,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on United States Gypsum Company’s
Motion to Compel Enforcement of USG’s Third-Party Subpoena to Level-Tech
Systems of Florida, Inc. (“Motion”). Doc. 1.
United

States

Gypsum

Company

(“USG”)

and

Dependable,

LLC

(“Dependable”) are involved in litigation in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. Doc. 1 at 1. USG alleges that in connection with such
litigation it served a subpoena to produce documents on nonparty Level-Tech Systems,
Inc. (“Level-Tech”), but that Level-Tech failed to timely object or comply. Id. at 2. A
copy of the subpoena at issue is attached to the Motion (“Subpoena”). Doc. 1-5. In the
Motion, USG moves to compel Level-Tech’s compliance with the Subpoena pursuant
to Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule(s)”). Doc. 1 at 2.
A motion to compel under Rule 45 must be filed in “the court for the district
where compliance is required[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

45(g); Doc. 1 at 2. “The prevailing rule across federal courts, and the courts within this
circuit, is that a subpoena’s place of compliance is the district where documents are to
be produced.” Celestin v. City of Ocoee, No. 6:21-cv-896-RBD-EJK, 2022 WL 833131,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2022) (collecting cases); see also Lebarr v. Lay, No. 3:20-cv-88HLA-JBT, 2022 WL 2275172, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 23, 2022); Taser Int’l, Inc. v.
Phazzer Elecs., Inc., No. 6:16-cv-366-PGB-LHP, 2022 WL 1619393, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
Apr. 19, 2022). Any other district lacks jurisdiction over a Rule 45 motion to compel.
See Lebarr, 2022 WL 2275172, at *1; Celestin, 2022 WL 833131, at *1; Taser Int’l, 2022
WL 1619393, at *1.
Here, the Subpoena commanded the production of documents to a law firm in
Chicago, Illinois. Doc. 1-5 at 1. The Motion acknowledges the rule that only “‘the
court for the district where compliance is required’” has jurisdiction over a Rule 45
motion to compel. Doc. 1 at 2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i)). The Motion
also acknowledges that “[t]he Subpoena commanded the production of documents …
at the office of USG’s counsel Swanson, Martin & Bell, located in Chicago, IL.” Id. at
3. Nevertheless, and without any discussion or explanation, USG contends that this
Court “has the authority to enforce the Subpoena.” Id. at 2. That is not so. Because
the Subpoena from USG commanded the production of documents in Chicago,
Illinois, the Middle District of Florida lacks jurisdiction over the Motion. See Lebarr,

2

2022 WL 2275172, at *1; Celestin, 2022 WL 833131, at *1; Taser Int’l, 2022 WL
1619393, at *1. 1
Accordingly, the Motion is denied without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court
is directed to close this file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 7, 2025.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

To be sure, the Subpoena perhaps should have commanded production in Florida,
where it was apparently delivered to Level-Tech and where Level-Tech is apparently based.
See Doc. 1-3 at 2; 1-6; 1-7. Indeed, by commanding production in Chicago, far more than 100
miles away, it appears the Subpoena was facially defective. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A);
see also Lebarr, 2022 WL 2275172, at *2; Collins v. Koch Foods, Inc., No. 1:19-mc-008, 2019 WL
2520308, at *2 & n.4 (S.D. Ga. June 18, 2019). Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this
Motion and this Subpoena, however, it need not address other potential issues.
1

3