Wartsila Technology Oy Ab v. Hawkins

Filing 21

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 5 Motion to Transfer Case. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2018) [Transferred from California Northern on 1/16/2018.]

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WARTSILA TECHNOLOGY OY AB, et
al.,
Movants,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
ALICIA M. HAWKINS,
Respondent.

Case No. 18-mc-80001-JCS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
TRANSFER TO THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH
CAROLINA
Re: Dkt. No. 5

On January 2, 2018, Wärstilä Technology Oy Ab and Wartsila Defense, Inc. (together,

13

“Wartsila”) filed a Motion to Show Cause for Failure to Comply with a Subpoena for Deposition

14

Testimony in a Civil Action and for Shortened Briefing Schedule (“Subpoena Motion”) pursuant

15

to Rule 45(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Subpoena Motion (dkt. 1). In the

16

Subpoena Motion, Wartsila seeks to enforce a third-party subpoena to compel United States Coast

17

Guard employee Alicia M. Hawkins to appear for a deposition in advance of a February 1, 2018

18

discovery deadline in a pending civil action in the United States District Court for the Western

19

District of North Carolina. Id. at 2–3. On January 5, 2018, this Court issued a stipulation and

20

order regarding the briefing schedule for the Subpoena Motion, which required that Hawkins

21

would file a Response on or before January 17, 2018 and that Wartsila would file its Reply on or

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

before January 19, 2018. See Stipulation and Order Regarding Briefing Schedule and Hearing
Date on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Show Cause (dkt. 4) at 2. On January 9, 2018, Hawkins filed a
Motion to Transfer (“Transfer Motion”) the matter to the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 45(f). See
Transfer Motion (dkt. 5).
Rule 45(f) states that “[w]hen the court where compliance is required did not issue the
subpoena, it may transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the

1

subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f).

2

Hawkins has consented to transfer. See Transfer Motion (dkt. 5) at 4. Although Hawkins’s failure

3

to make her preference as the forum for this dispute known earlier in the parties’ negotiations has

4

caused some degree of inefficiency for both the parties and the courts, because the Subpoena

5

Motion ultimately turns on a question of whether certain information is relevant to the merits of a

6

case pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, this

7

Court concludes that Wartsila’s Subpoena Motion would be best decided by the court adjudicating

8

that dispute. And while Wartsila is correct that there is no assurance of the North Carolina court

9

hearing the pending motion on the date currently scheduled, that court has the authority to adjust
discovery deadlines if it determines such a change is warranted. For these reasons, Hawkins’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Transfer Motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk is instructed to transfer this case to the

12

United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, with the suggestion that it

13

be related to or consolidated with case number 5:16-cv-00198-FDW-DSC in that court. The

14

briefing schedule remains in place unless it is altered by the North Carolina court.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2018
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2