Bridge v. Credit One Financial

Filing 86

ORDER Denying 58 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/8/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
WILLIAM BRIDGE,

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to quash a subpoena served by Plaintiff upon

15

non-party NCO Financial Systems. Docket No. 58. Plaintiff filed a response and Defendant filed

16

a reply. Docket Nos. 70, 73. In its reply, Defendant concedes that the “[s]ubpoena to NCO identifies

17

Pennsylvania as the location for compliance.” Docket No. 73, at 1-2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

18

45(d)(3), this Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve a motion to quash when the place where compliance

19

is required is located in another district. See Agincourt Gaming, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., 2014 WL

20

4079555, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2014); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)-(B) (a motion to quash

21

or modify a subpoena is directed to “the court for the district where compliance is required”).

22

Defendant refiled the motion to quash in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, on May 19, 2015,

23

that motion was adjudicated. See Docket No. 83-1. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash

24

(Docket No. 58) is hereby DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED: June 8, 2015

9
Plaintiff(s),
10
vs.
11
CREDIT ONE FINANCIAL,
12
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 58)

27
28
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge