Cen Com, Inc v. Numerex Corp et al

Filing 151

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 125 Sealed Motion to Compel Third-Party Discovery signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (TH)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Case No. C17-0560RSM
CEN COM, INC., a Washington Corporation
doing business as American Digital Monitoring,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
Plaintiff,
MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY
DISCOVERY
v.
NUMEREX CORP., a Pennsylvania
Corporation; NextAlarm, LLC, a Georgia
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 – 10,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Third Party
Production Under FRCP 45 Subpoena. Dkt. #125 (filed under seal). Plaintiff seeks an Order
compelling third-party Amcest to fully respond to the subpoena issued to it by Plaintiff. Id.

17
18

Amcest has not responded to this motion nor has it filed any motion to quash. Defendants object

19

to the motion as untimely and as filed in the improper venue. Dkt. #133. For the reasons

20

discussed herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

21

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendants lack standing to challenge the

22

subpoena issued by Plaintiff as they do not claim any personal right or privilege with respect to

23
24
25
26
27

the documents sought. See Dkt. #133; see also 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure §2459 (2d ed. 2007); Transcor, Inc. v. Furney Charters, Inc.,
212 F.R.D. 588, 590-91 (D. Kan. 2003) (finding that the defendant has a “personal right with
respect to its bank account records at the subpoenaed banks, and this right gives it standing to
move to quash the subpoenas”); Cal. Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc., 299
ORDER - 1

1
2
3

F.R.D. 638, 643 (E.D. Cal. 2014); Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119622,
2013 WL 4536808, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) (“Conversely, ‘[a] party does not have
standing to quash a subpoena on the basis that the non-party recipient of the subpoena would be

4
5
6

subjected to an undue burden when the non-party has failed to object.’” (alteration in original)).
Thus, this Court will disregard Defendants’ opposition.

7

However, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for its own reasons. First, the subpoena at

8

issue fails to identify the Court from which it has issued as required by the Federal Rules of Civil

9

Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(i). The subpoena issued by Plaintiff is blank where the

10
11

Court name should have been inserted. Dkt. #126 (filed under seal), Ex. C. Second, the instant
motion has not been made in the appropriate venue. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides

12
13

that “[a]t any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court

14

for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.”

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). The subpoena commands production of documents at a law office

16

in Philadelphia, PA. Dkt. #126 (filed under seal), Ex. C. Plaintiff asserts that it commanded

17

electronic production at its counsel’s office in Washington State, but points to no portion of the

18

record that supports that assertion. See Dkt. #136 at 2-3. Philadelphia is located in the Eastern

19
20
21
22
23

District of Pennsylvania. Therefore, this motion was required to be brought in the federal court
in that District. For those reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the production of records from
Amcest (Dkt. #125) is DENIED.
DATED this 18 day of June, 2018.

24

A

25

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27

ORDER - 2