Louangel, Inc. et al v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying 35 Motion to Quash.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(lcayce, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
LOUANGEL, INC.; dba LONGHORN
STEAKHOUSE RESTAURANT, et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-00147
§
§
§
§

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH
Before the Court is “Defendants’ Motion to Quash and Objections to Louangel,
Inc. d/b/a Longhorn Steakhouse’s Subpoena to Alston & Bird LLP” (D.E. 35). For the
reasons set out below, the Motion is DENIED.
Defendants seek this Court’s order quashing or modifying a subpoena obtained by
Plaintiffs requiring Defendants’ legal counsel in other cases to produce their legal files.
Additionally, Defendants seek a protective order. Their complaints are that the subpoena
does not provide reasonable time for compliance, the request is vague, overbroad, and
unduly burdensome, and that the subject matter is privileged. The legal counsel at issue
is the law firm of Alston & Bird (Alston) in Atlanta Georgia.
Alston is not a party to this case, so the production is to take place in Atlanta,
Georgia. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(a). Thus, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2)(B), the
subpoena must, and did, issue from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. D.E. 35-1. Plaintiffs respond that this Court is without jurisdiction

1/2

to quash or modify the Northern District of Georgia’s subpoena. D.E. 37. The Court
agrees.
Under Rule 45(c)(3), a motion to quash or modify is to be directed to the “issuing
court.” The Court finds that the Defendants’ request that this Court determine the scope
of the subpoena and issue a protective order to be equivalent to a request to quash or
modify. The Court agrees with Assoc. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Texas, 2008
WL 2944671 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2008) and Pacific Century Int’l, Ltd. v. Does 1-30, No.
H-11-3035, 2011 WL 7443932 (S.D. Tex. November 16, 2011) that the Defendants’
complaints must be directed to the Northern District of Georgia as the issuing court.
Absent an order from the Northern District of Georgia transferring the matter to this
Court, this Court declines to issue any relief with respect to that Court’s subpoena. See
generally, Limon v. Berryco Barge Lines, L.L.C., 2009 WL 1347363 (S.D. Tex., May 19,
2009).
The Motion (D.E. 35) is DENIED.
ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2012.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2