Warshawsky v. Phoenix, City of

Opinion

WO

Justin Harry Warshawsky, No. CV-25-00104-PHX-KML

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

City of Phoenix, et al.,

Defendant. Plaintiff Justin Harry Warshawsky requests the court issue a subpoena for a non- party located in Texas to appear at a deposition. (Doc. 54.) The proposed subpoena identifies the place of compliance as a “virtual appearance” and includes a link to virtual meeting. (Doc. 54 at 3.) “Under Rule 45 . . . the place of compliance must be a physical ‘place’ subject to ‘geographical limits’ and capable of being measured according to mileage.” CSS, Inc. v. Herrington, 354 F. Supp. 3d 702, 709 (N.D. Tex. 2017). See also In re Kirkland, 75 F.4th 1030, 1042-46 (9th Cir. 2023). The motion for issuance is denied. On September 12, 2025, Warshawsky sent an email to the chambers inbox indicating the parties had agreed the non-party should be subpoenaed. Defendant then emailed stating there was no agreement between the parties. The parties then exchanged additional emails, copying the court on each. The chambers inbox is for the parties to provide proposed orders. It cannot be used to convey substantive information, such as that all parties agreed to a particular motion. All such information must be filed on the docket. Future improper communications may result in the imposition of sanctions. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Issuance (Doc. 54) is DENIED. Dated this 12th day of September, 2025. UU ia M. VBRA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham United States District Judge

_2-