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.]

Download PDF
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

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?