Souza v. Elevate, Inc.

Filing 82

ORDER Denying without prejudice 79 Motion to Extend Time and Denying without prejudice 80 Motion to Extend Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 11/6/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RGDG)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

***
John Souza,

Case No. 2:17-cv-01924-JAD-DJA
Petitioner,

v.

Order

Elevate, Inc.,
Respondent.

11
12

Before the Court are non-party Stephanie Thurston and Wright Thurston’s motions to

13

extend time to respond to a deposition subpoena. (ECF Nos. 79 and 80). However, as John

14

Souza—the subpoenaing party—points out in response, the subpoenas require the Thurstons to

15

appear for their deposition in Salt Lake City, Utah. (ECF No. 81). Under FRCP 45(d)(3)(A), the

16

court for the district where compliance is required is responsible for quashing or modifying a

17

subpoena. “Under the current version of the Rule, when a motion to quash a subpoena is filed in

18

a court other than the court where compliance is required, that court lacks jurisdiction to resolve

19

the motion.” Agincourt Gaming, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00708-RFB-NJK, 2014 WL

20

4079555, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2014). Here, the court where compliance is required is the

21

District of Utah. This Court thus lacks jurisdiction to resolve the Thurstons’ motions and denies

22

the motions without prejudice.

23
24
25

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions to extend time (ECF Nos. 79, 80) are
denied without prejudice.
DATED: November 6, 2023

26
27
28

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE