MATYSIK v. JUDD TRANSPORTATION, LLC. et al

Filing 80

ORDER denying 73 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 12/15/2015. (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MICHAEL MATYSIK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUDD TRANSPORTATION, L.L.C., et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-1889-TWP-DKL

Entry and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas [dkt. 73]
This cause comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas [dkt.
73]. Plaintiff has filed a response, and Defendants have filed a reply. District Judge Tanya
Walton Pratt referred the motion to the undersigned for ruling.
Defendants seek to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued to Dr. Paula Robinson
of the Estill Medical Clinic in Irvine, Kentucky, and the subpoena duces tecum issue to
North Toledo Urgent Care in Toledo, Ohio. The subpoenas were issued in connection
with this action in this federal district court. Both subpoenas seek records pertaining to
Defendant Bret Larsen. Both subpoenas command production at Plaintiff’s counsel’s
offices in Valparaiso, Indiana.
Rule 45(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes “the court for the
district where compliance is required” to “quash or modify a subpoena” under certain
circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). Valparaiso is in Porter County Indiana, which

lies in the Northern District of Indiana. See www.innd.uscourts.gov. Therefore, the
Northern District of Indiana rather than this Court has the authority to hear Defendants’
motion to quash. See, e.g., Meta v. Target Corp., No. 15-mc-050, 2015 WL 7459981, at *1 n.1
(E.D. Wis. Nov. 24, 2015) (noting that Rule 45(d)(3) “authorizes ‘the court for the district
where compliance is required’ to quash or modify a subpoena” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d)(3))); Paso Del Norte Motors, LP v. Kia Motors of Am., Inc., No. 315-CV-2672-M, 2015 WL
4939948, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2015) (“[B]ecause the subpoena commands … production of
documents at a location in another district, this Court has no basis or authority to address this
subpoena under … Rule 45.”). Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas [dkt.
73] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED THIS DATE: 12/15/2015

Electronic Distribution to All Counsel of Record

2