Contreras v. Kalalou, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: November 30, 2023
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00452
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GRIDKOR, LLC and GRIDKOR TRUCKING AND LOGISTICS LLC,

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 22 Misc. 452 (JGLC) (SLC) -v-

ORDER

LESYA MAYDANSKA and OLEH MAYDANSKYY,

Defendants.

SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 1 (the “Motion”)) to compel compliance with subpoenas they served on Defendants has been referred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(C), to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for a report and recommendation. (ECF No. 14). To permit a ruling on the Motion, the Court orders as follows: 1. By December 1, 2023, Plaintiffs shall file on the docket proof that they served Defendants with the Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). The Court notes that the affidavits of service that Plaintiffs filed relate to service of the underlying subpoenas and not the Motion. (See ECF Nos. 4–9; see also ECF No. 1 at 3). 2. The document subpoenas (the “Document Subpoenas”) that Plaintiffs seek to enforce call for compliance in Uniondale, New York, which is not in this District. (See ECF Nos. 3-1 at 2; 3-2 at 2). Accordingly, by December 8, 2023, Plaintiffs shall file a letter explaining the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction to compel compliance with the Document Subpoenas. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i) (providing that “the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection”) (emphasis added); accord. Greene_v. Paramount Pictures Corp., No. 14 Civ. 1044 (JS) (SIL), 2016 □□ 4398432, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 2016) (denying motion to compel compliance with subpoena without prejudice to renewal in district where compliance was required). Dated: New York, New York November 30, 2023 SO ORDERED.

AMIE, □ (SABAH L. CAYE/ United States Magistrate Judge