Aquatech International Corporation et al v. Veolia Water West Operating Services, Inc. et al

Filing 5

ORDER that 1 Motion to Quash is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed motion must be filed no later than July 27, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/20/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11

AQUATECH INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al.,

12

Plaintiff(s),

13

vs.

14

VEOLIA WATER WEST OPERATING
SERVICES, INC., et al.,

15
Defendant(s).
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01316-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH SUBPOENA
(Docket No. 1)

17

Pending before the Court is Movant Molycorp Minerals LLC’s motion to quash subpoena.

18

Docket No. 1. Discovery conducted through non-party subpoenas is governed by Rule 45. See, e.g.,

19

Paws Up Ranch, LLC v. Green, 2013 WL 6184940, *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 22, 2013).1 “Under the current

20

version of the Rule, when a motion to quash a subpoena is filed in a court other than the court where

21

compliance is required, that court lacks jurisdiction to resolve the motion.” Agincourt Gaming, LLC v.

22

Zynga, Inc., 2014 WL 4079555, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2014); see also Rule 45(d)(3)(A)-(B) (a motion

23

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

24

In this case, the subpoena at issue requires compliance in Nevada. See Docket No. 1 at 71.

25

Nonetheless, it appears that the parties subsequently agreed to allow Movant’s compliance in Colorado.

26

See, e.g., Docket No. 1 at 86-87. It is unclear whether an amended subpoena was served to reflect this

27
28

1

References to “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

new place of compliance. It is also unclear whether, in these circumstances, this Court has jurisdiction

2

to resolve a motion to quash.2

3

For these reasons, the motion to quash is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed

4

motion must be filed no later than July 27, 2015. Any renewed motion and any response thereto must

5

provide meaningful discussion explaining the parties’ position as to whether this Court or the District

6

of Colorado possesses the jurisdiction to resolve the instant motion to quash.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: July 20, 2015

9

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

It appears Movant has filed its motion in both this Court and in the District of Colorado. See
Docket No. 1 at 6 n.2.
2