Concepts in Production, LLC v. Joiner
ORDER denying 32 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 12/4/17. (jcm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CONCEPTS IN PRODUCTION, LLC
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-cv-118-DMB-DAS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
Before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel SLM Solutions NA, Inc. (“SLM”) to
comply with a subpoena duces tecum issued from this court by Plaintiff’s attorney on November 8,
2017, and served on November 14, 2017.
The court finds that the instant motion to compel should be denied. 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, if “[a] person commanded to produce documents or tangible things” objects, “the
serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order
compelling production or inspection.” Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i). The subpoena duces tecum was served
on SLM, a non-party, in Wixon, Michigan and commanded SLM to produce the requested
documents and/or objects at Seglund, Gabe, Pawlak & Groth, PLC in Wixom, Michigan.
Therefore, while the subpoena 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 Motion to Compel  is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 4th day of December, 2017.
/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?