Summary
declining to adjudicate subpoena-related dispute, despite the parties consenting to resolving the dispute in that court
Summary of this case from York Holding, Ltd. v. WaidOpinion
20-cv-958-CAB-DDL
04-06-2023
OMNITRACS, LLC and XRS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. PLATFORM SCIENCE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENA TO VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC
Hon. David D. Leshner, United States Magistrate Judge
On April 5, 2023, Defendant Platform Science, Inc. (“Platform Science”) contacted the undersigned's chambers to request a discovery conference with the Court regarding its subpoena to nonparty Vista Equity Partners, LLC (“Vista”). Pursuant to the undersigned's Chambers Rules, Platform Science requested a conference as a predicate to an anticipated motion to compel further responses to the subpoena and stated that given the undersigned's familiarity with the case, Vista “[did] not object to proceeding with a motion to compel before [the undersigned] in the Southern District of California.” At the Court's request, Platform Science lodged a copy of the subpoena, which sets the place of compliance as Austin, Texas.
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any motion for an order compelling discovery from a nonparty “must be made in the court where the discovery is or will be taken.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2). Likewise, Rule 45 requires the parties to bring a motion to quash or modify a subpoena in the “district where compliance is required.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A). Rule 45 also provides that the court where compliance is required may transfer the matter to this Court “if the person subject to the subpoena consents.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(f). Here, however, “the parties have completely skipped that step.” Bunn v. Dash, No. 2:20-cv-07389-DMG-JC, 2021 WL 4868361, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2021). “Absent [such] a transfer, only a court in the district of the place of compliance has jurisdiction to compel compliance or modify or quash a subpoena.” Youngevity Int'l, Corp. v. Smith, No. 16-CV-704 BTM (JLB), 2017 WL 6418961, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017); accord Europlay Capital Advisors, LLC v. Does, 323 F.R.D. 628, 629 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (finding “no jurisdiction over [a] motion to compel” an out-of district nonparty's compliance with subpoena and collecting cases).
For the foregoing reasons, and notwithstanding Vista's apparent consent to have this Court adjudicate the parties' dispute, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to do so at this time. Accordingly, the Court may not rule on the parties' dispute related to Platform Science's subpoena to Vista unless and until the District Court where compliance is required transfers the matter to this District, whether based on Vista's consent or a finding of exceptional circumstances. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(f).
IT IS SO ORDERED.