Commercial Bank of Dubai v. Nevada Title Company et al

Filing 3

ORDER re 1 Ex Parte Petition. IT IS ORDERED that no later than noon on Monday, July 24, 2017, Commercial Bank of Dubai is directed to file a supplement to its petition (1) explaining why this action was not filed in the clerk' s office of the districts unofficial southern division, or (2) why the action, even if properly commenced in the unofficial northern division, should not be transferred to the unofficial southern division for further proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORD ERED that no later than noon on Monday July 24, 2017, Petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition explaining why its proposed subpoenas are not defective under Rule 45. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 7/18/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 In the Matter of the Application of 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) for an Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) ) Authorizing Service of a Subpoena to ) Require Testimony and the Production of ) Documents by ) ) NEVADA TITLE COMPANY, ) WYNN RESORTS, LTD., ) WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC, ) CAESAR’S ENTERTAINMENT CORP., ) CAESAR’S ENTERTAINMENT ) OPERATING COMPANY, INC., and ) LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., ) ) Respondents. ) _____________________________________) 3:17-cv-00411-LRH-WGC ORDER 19 Before the court is the Ex Parte Petition for an Order under 28 U.S.C. § 19782(a) of the 20 21 Commercial Bank of Dubai (CBD). (ECF No. 1.) 22 I. PLACE OF FILING (LR IA 1-8) 23 Under LR IA 1-8, a civil action must be filed in the clerk’s office for the unofficial division of 24 the court in which the action allegedly arose. A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 may be filed in the 25 district in which resides or is found seeking an order requiring the person to produce a document or give 26 testimony. However, the “persons” to which CBD’s petition applies are all companies “located” (as 27 CBD characterizes it) in Las Vegas, Nevada. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) 28 /// 1 No later than noon on Monday, July 24, 2017, CBD is directed to file a supplement to its petition 2 (1) explaining why this action was not filed in the clerk’s office of the district’s unofficial southern 3 division, or (2) why the action, even if properly commenced in the unofficial northern division, should 4 not be transferred to the unofficial southern division for further proceedings. 5 II. LOCATION OF DEPOSITIONS (FED. R. CIV. P. 45) 6 Despite representing that Respondents are “located” in Las Vegas, Petitioner is proposing that 7 Respondents appear for depositions at the offices of the Petitioner’s counsel in Reno, Nevada . (ECF No. 8 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, and 1-13.) CBD’s petition also seeks production of documents from 9 Respondents in Reno, Nevada. (ECF No. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, and 1-7.) 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A) only allows a subpoena to command the appearance of a person at 11 a deposition “within 100 miles of where a person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business 12 in person.” Rule 45(c)(2)(A) only authorizes a subpoena seeking production of documents “within 100 13 miles of where a person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person.” Alternatively, 14 to the extent CBD’s subpoena seeks an inspection of premises to occur, Rule 45 requires that such 15 inspection is to be “at the premises to be inspected.” (emphasis added.) 16 Because counsel’s offices in Reno are more than 100 miles from the location of the businesses 17 from which CBD seeks documents/depositions, it therefore appears to the court that CBD’s petition is 18 defective under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. No later than noon on Monday July 24, 2017, Petitioner shall file 19 a supplement to the petition explaining why its proposed subpoenas are not defective under Rule 45. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: July 18, 2017. 22 ____________________________________ WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?