Ohio Security Insurance Company v. Newsome et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying Defendants Joshua A. Newsome and Kodiak Equipment, Inc.'s 63 Motion to Quash a third-party subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 02/09/2015. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSHUA A. NEWSOME, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________

CV 114-125

ORDER
_________
Before the Court is the motion to quash a third-party subpoena filed by Defendants
Joshua A. Newsome and Kodiak Equipment, Inc.

(Doc. no. 63.)

The subpoena requires

production of the movants’ financial records and tax returns from 1999-2013 by Bell & Futch,
PLLC, the movants’ accounting firm. (Doc no. 63-1.) The subpoena specifies an address in
Tacoma, Washington as the place of compliance since Bell & Futch, PLLC is located in
Puyallup, Washington. (Id.)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, as amended in 2013, provides that while a subpoena must be issued by
the district court where the underlying action is pending, challenges to the subpoena are to be
heard by the district court encompassing the place where compliance with the subpoena is
required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2), (d)(3)(A). The 2013 amendments to Rule 45, including
subsection (f) and the advisory committee notes, “make clear . . . that subpoena-related motions
should be heard in the court where compliance is required.” Woods ex rel. U.S. v. SouthernCare,

Inc., 303 F.R.D. 405, 407 (N.D. Ala. 2014); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) advisory committee's note
(2013) (“[S]ubpoena-related motions and applications are to be made to the court where
compliance is required under Rule 45(c).”) Here, because the place of compliance for the
subpoena is the Western District of Washington, this Court is not the appropriate venue for
contesting the subpoena. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to quash. (Doc. no. 63.)
SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2015, at Augusta, Georgia.