Omnitracs, LLC v. Platform Science, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMNITRACS, LLC and XRS Case No.: 20-cv-958-CAB-DDL CORPORATION, 12 ORDER REGARDING Plaintiffs, 13 DISCOVERY DISPUTE v. CONCERNING DEFENDANT’S 14 SUBPOENA TO VISTA EQUITY 15 PLATFORM SCIENCE, INC., PARTNERS, LLC

16 Defendant. 17

19 On April 5, 2023, Defendant Platform Science, Inc. (“Platform Science”) 20 contacted the undersigned’s chambers to request a discovery conference with the 21 Court regarding its subpoena to nonparty Vista Equity Partners, LLC (“Vista”). 22 Pursuant to the undersigned’s Chambers Rules, Platform Science requested a 23 conference as a predicate to an anticipated motion to compel further responses to 24 the subpoena and stated that given the undersigned’s familiarity with the case, 25 Vista “[did] not object to proceeding with a motion to compel before [the 26 undersigned] in the Southern District of California.” At the Court’s request, 27 Platform Science lodged a copy of the subpoena, which sets the place of 28 compliance as Austin, Texas. 1 Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any motion for 2 ||an order compelling discovery from a nonparty “must be made in the court where 3 discovery is or will be taken.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2). Likewise, Rule 45 4 || requires the parties to bring a motion to quash or modify a subpoena in the “district 5 ||where compliance is required.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Rule 45 also 6 provides that the court where compliance is required may transfer the matter to 7 Court “if the person subject to the subpoena consents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). 8 ||Here, however, “the parties have completely skipped that step.” Bunn v. Dash, 9 ||No. 2:20-cv-07389-DMG-JC, 2021 WL 4868361, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2021). 10 ||“Absent [such] a transfer, only a court in the district of the place of compliance has 11 ||jurisdiction to compel compliance or modify or quash a subpoena.” Youngevity 12 || Corp. v. Smith, No. 16-CV-704 BTM (JLB), 2017 WL 6418961, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 13 ||Dec. 15, 2017); accord Europlay Capital Advisors, LLC v. Does, 323 F.R.D. 628, 14 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (finding “no jurisdiction over [a] motion to compel” an out-of- 15 || district nonparty’s compliance with subpoena and collecting cases). 16 For the foregoing reasons, and notwithstanding Vista’s apparent consent to 17 ||have this Court adjudicate the parties’ dispute, the Court finds that it lacks 18 jurisdiction to do so at this time. Accordingly, the Court may not rule on the parties’ 19 || dispute related to Platform Science’s subpoena to Vista unless and until the District 20 ||Court where compliance is required transfers the matter to this District, whether 21 ||based on Vista’s consent or a finding of exceptional circumstances. See Fed. R. 22 || Civ. P. 45(f). 23 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: April 6, 2023 ait 25 Tb Lh, 26 Hon. David D. Leshner 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28