Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 || Youssif KAMAL, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-1298-BAS-AGS 11 Plaintiffs,| ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 12 MOTION TO QUASH (ECF No. 44) 13 |} EDEN CREAMERY, LLC, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendants move to quash twelve subpoenas that plaintiffs have served on third 17 || parties. (ECF No. 44-1, at 4.) But only “the issuing court, and not the court where the 18 |/underlying action is pending, has the authority to consider motions to quash or modify 19 subpoenas under [Rule 45].” S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 20 ||2011). None of these subpoenas were issued in the Southern District of California. (See 21 No. 44-5, at 3.) Because this district is not “the district where compliance is required,” 22 Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on defendants’ motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). 23 Thus, defendants’ motion is DENIED without prejudice to being refiled in the 24 || appropriate districts. 25 ||Dated: February 12, 2020 26 < | / 07 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge