Murillo v. Goad et al

Filing 46

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 17 Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice to its reassertion in the proper district. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/13/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LINO MURILLO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BRENDAN MICHAEL GOAD, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) _______________________________________ ) Case No. 2:16-cv-02739-RFB-CWH ORDER Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 17), filed on June 28, 11 2017. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 19) on July 12, 2017, and Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF 12 No. 22) on July 19, 2017. Plaintiff seeks enforcement of its subpoena duces tecum of non-party 13 Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., which seeks production of documents relating to 14 Sedgwick’s analysis of an accident involving Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff argues that it is 15 entitled to the requested documents since they were generated in the normal course of business on 16 behalf of Defendants. Defendants argue, inter alia, that the motion was filed in the incorrect district. 17 Plaintiff replies that since counsel for Defendants represented Sedgwick in regard to this motion, and 18 produced documents responsive to the subpoena in this district, and that the litigation is proceeding 19 in this district, that this motion should also be heard here. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides that the party that serves a subpoena “may move 21 the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or 22 inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). A motion to compel enforcement of a subpoena that is 23 properly brought where compliance is required may be transferred to the district which issued the 24 subpoena, but the burden is on the party seeking transfer to show exceptional circumstances. See 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f); Music Grp. Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. Does, 82 F. Supp. 3d 979, 984 26 (N.D. Cal. 2015). However, “when a motion [under Rule 45] is filed in a court other than the court 27 where compliance is required, that court lacks jurisdiction to resolve the motion.” Agincourt 28 Gaming, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-0708-RFB-NJK, 2014 WL 4079555, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 1 1 2 15, 2014). Plaintiff’s subpoena (ECF No. 17-2) was issued by this court, and seeks compliance at 236 3 Adams Ave., Memphis, Tennessee. Rule 45 therefore requires that any motion to enforce this 4 subpoena must be brought in the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Plaintiff 5 argues that Defendant and Sedgewick have waived the right to have the motion heard in Tennessee. 6 However, Plaintiff provides no authority to suggest that the provision of Rule 45 requiring that a 7 motion to compel be brought where compliance is required can be waived. Rule 45(f) sets forth a 8 specific procedure which allows for transfer of a motion to an issuing court, but only under specific 9 circumstances which Plaintiff has not as yet pursued. No other alternatives are provided under Rule 10 45 for an issuing court to entertain a motion to compel production of a subpoena which seeks 11 compliance in another district. Absent a transfer under Rule 45(f) from the district where 12 compliance is required, this Court has no jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena. 13 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 17) is DENIED without prejudice to its reassertion in the proper district. 15 16 DATED: October 13, 2017 17 18 19 _________________________________ 20 C.W. Hoffman, Jr. 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?