Miller Mendel Inc et al v. City of Oklahoma City

Filing 15

ORDER TRANSFERRING MATTER; signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 5 MOTION to Quash Second Subpoena filed by Tyler Miller, Rylander & Associates PC and Miller Mendel Inc. Plaintiffs' Request is transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma for consideration. (SP) [Transferred from Washington Western on 10/2/2019.]

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

In the Matter of Subpoena to
RYLANDER & ASSOCIATES P.C.,

9
10

Nonparty Deponent

CASE NO. CV19-5031 BHS
ORDER TRANSFERRING
MATTER

MILLER MENDEL, INC, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,
v.

12
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY,
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Miller Mendel, Inc. and Tyler
Miller (“Plaintiffs”) and Plaintiffs’ attorneys, Rylander & Associates, P.C.’s (“Rylander”)
(collectively “Movants”) motion to quash, Dkt. 5, the Court’s request for a joint status
report, Dkt. 13, and the parties’ report, Dkt. 14.
On August 7, 2019, Movants filed the instant motion to quash a subpoena served
by Defendant the City of Oklahoma (“City”). Id. The City obtained the subpoena from
the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in the case of

22

ORDER - 1

1

Miller Mendel, Inc. v. the City of Oklahoma, C18-990. Dkt. 6-1 at 2. The City served the

2

subpoena on August 5, 2019, requesting the production of documents on August 9, 2019.

3

Id. Movants argue that the Court should quash the subpoena because it violates the

4

thirty-day period for responding to a subpoena. Dkt. 5. On August 19, 2019, the City

5

responded and agreed to allow Rylander thirty days to respond to the subpoena. Dkt. 10

6

at 2. On August 23, 2019, Movants replied. Dkt. 12.

7

On September 11, 2019, the Court requested the parties’ positions regarding

8

whether the Court should transfer this motion to the Oklahoma court pursuant to Fed. R.

9

Civ. P. 45(f). Rule 45 allows transfer to the issued court for exceptional circumstance,

10

which the Court finds exists because the City served the subpoena on counsel that has

11

appeared in that case. In their status report, the parties agree that the Court should transfer

12

the matter to Oklahoma. Therefore, the Clerk shall transfer this matter to the Western

13

District of Oklahoma.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 30th day of September, 2019.

A

16
17

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2