Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC

Opinion

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