Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Cox et al
ORDER dismissing 232 Motion to Quash; dismissing 234 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 1/30/19. (jcm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
RONALDO DESIGNER JEWELRY, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17cv2-DMB-DAS
JAMES B. COX, ET AL.
ORDER DISMISSING MOTIONS TO QUASH
Before the court is Plaintiff’s  Motion to Quash Subpoena served on LeachGarner,
Inc. and  Motion to Quash Subpoena served on Rio Grande. Both subpoenas were issued by
this Court. However, the subpoena to LeachGarner, whose place of business is in Attleboro,
Massachusetts, commands production at the Rashauna Norment Law Firm in Little Rock,
Arkansas. Similarly, the subpoena to Rio Grande, whose place of business is Albuquerque, New
Mexico, commands production at the Rashauna Norment Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Plaintiff moves to quash these subpoenas for violating the “hundred mile” rule. Fed. R. Civ. P.
45 (c)(2)(A) (“A subpoena may command . . . production of documents electronically stored
information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person.”).
The court finds that the instant motions to quash must be dismissed. Rule 45(a)(2)
requires that “[a] subpoena must issue from the court where the action is pending.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 45(a)(2). However, “[o]n timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is
required must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . requires a person to comply beyond the
geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(ii) (emphasis added).
As previously stated, the subpoenas command production in Little Rock, Arkansas. Therefore,
while the subpoenas properly issued from this court, where the action is pending, the court of
compliance presides over disputes concerning production. See Johnson v. Simmons, 2015 WL
2155714 at * 1 (S.D. Miss. May 7, 2015) (citing Martensen v. Kock, 301 F.R.D. 562, 586 (D.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Quash [232 and 234] are
SO ORDERED, this the 30th day of January, 2019.
/s/ David A. Sanders
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?