Michelin North America Inc v. Inter-City Tire and Auto Center Inc

Filing 330

OPINION AND ORDER denying (329) Motion to Quash without prejudice in case 6:13-cv-01067-HMH; denying (249) Motion to Quash without prejudice in case 6:13-cv-02752-HMH. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 10/29/14.Associated Cases: 6:13-cv-01067-HMH, 6:13-cv-02752-HMH(sfla, ) Modified on 10/29/2014 to edit text(jtho, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Michelin North America, Inc., and
Michelin Retread Technologies, Inc.,

)
)
)
C.A. No. 6:13-1067-HMH
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, )
)
vs.
)
)
Inter City Tire and Auto Center, Inc., and
)
Inter City Retread, Inc.,
)
)
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs, )
)
vs.
)
)
Service Tire Truck Centers, Inc.,
)
Tire Centers, LLC, James Cavanaugh,
)
William McCabe, William Schafer,
)
Andrew Meurer, and Marc Pasquet,
)
)
Counterclaim Defendants.
)
_____________________________________________________________________________

Inter City Tire and Auto Center, Inc. and.
Inter City Retread, Inc.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Michelin North America, Inc., Michelin
Retread Technologies, Inc., Service Tire
Truck Center, Inc., James Cavanaugh
William McCabe and Oscar Simoes,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 6:13-2752-HMH

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant/Counterclaim Defendant James
Cavanaugh’s (“Cavanaugh”) pro se motion to quash a subpoena allegedly issued from this court
by Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Inter City Tire and Auto Center, Inc. and Inter City
Retread, Inc. (collectively “Inter City”). Cavanaugh did not attach the subpoena described in the
motion to his filing. See (Mot. Quash, ECF No. 329.)1 Rule 45(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that motions to quash must be filed in “the court for the district where
compliance is required.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)-(B). Any motion to quash Inter City’s
subpoena should have been filed in the district where compliance is required. Because
Cavanaugh did not attach the subpoena to his motion, the court is unable to evaluate whether it
has jurisdiction to consider the motion. Accordingly, Cavanaugh’s motion to quash is denied
without prejudice.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Cavanaugh’s motion to quash, docket number 329, is denied without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
October 29, 2014

1

All citations in ECF refer to C.A. No. 6:13-cv-1067.
2