Vivint v. Bailie et al
Filing
44
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDERdenying Motions to compel compliance with subpoenas re 31 , 35 MOTIONS to Expedite Short Form Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 11/21/16. (dla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
VIVINT, INC.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00685-DAK-PMW
v.
CRAIG BAILIE et al.,
Defendants.
District Judge Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
Before the court is Plaintiff Vivint, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motions to compel compliance with
subpoenas served on Low Voltage Group, LLC (“LVG”) and Johnathan Anthony.1 At the time
the subpoenas were served, LVG and Anthony (collectively “Respondents”) were not parties to
this action. Respondents appear to reside in or around St. Charles, Missouri, more than 100
miles outside the District of Utah. Despite this, the subpoenas required Respondents to produced
documents and things at the offices of Plaintiff’s counsel, which is located in the District of
Utah.2 Counsel for Respondents served objections, including an objection to the location of
production under rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.3 In response, Plaintiff’s
counsel filed the current motions to compel compliance.
“A subpoena may command: (A) production of documents, electronically stored
1
Docket nos. 31 and 35.
2
Docket no. 35-1 at 2 and 7.
3
Docket no. 35-2.
information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2). Motions to quash
or modify a subpoena or to compel compliance with a subpoena must be brought in “the court
for the district where compliance is required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i) (in response to an
objection, “the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for
an order compelling production or inspection”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3) (“the court for the
district where compliance is required must quash or modify” an improper subpoena); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(g) (“The court for the district where compliance is required . . . may hold in contempt
a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an
order related to it.”).
Here, Plaintiff acknowledges that the stated location for production is improper, but asks
the court to modify the subpoenas to include a proper location for production.4 This district is
not a proper location to command production, to compel compliance, or to modify the
subpoenas. Plaintiff’s defective subpoenas cannot confer jurisdiction on this court.
Accordingly, the motions are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 21st day of November, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
4
Docket no. 35 at 2.
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?