Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC

Opinion

Youssif KAMAL, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-1298-BAS-AGS Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR v. PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 48) EDEN CREAMERY, LLC, et al., AND SETTING MOTION HEARING Defendants. Defendants move for a protective order regarding 95 subpoenas that plaintiffs have served on third parties. (ECF No. 48-1, at 1.) Defendants ask the Court to “order[] plaintiffs to withdraw the Subpoenas . . . .” (Id. at 2.) 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). Only one of these subpoenas, served on Bon Suisse, Inc., was issued in the Southern District of California. (See ECF No. 48-5, at 1; ECF No. 48-7, at 1-2; ECF No. 48-9, at 1-5.) Because this district is not “the district where compliance is required,” this Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on defendants’ motion for all but the Bon Suisse subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Thus, except for the Bon Suisse subpoena, defendants’ motion is DENIED without prejudice to being refiled in the appropriate districts. On March 12, 2020, at 4:00 p.m., the Court will hear oral argument on the merits of defendants’ motion with regard to the Bon Suisse subpoena. By March 4, 2020, the parties must independently contact Judge Schopler’s chambers to indicate whether they will appear in person or telephonically at this hearing. A party must call chambers by p.m. if appearing telephonically. Dated: February 24, 2020

g Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge