In Re Third Party Subpoenas Issued to Florence Paau
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
American Airlines moved to compel compliance with two subpoenas issued to non-party Florence Paau, whose address is in Oceanside, California. The court ordered the movant to show cause why the matter should not be transferred to the Southern District of California, noting that the district of compliance for the subpoenas appears to be the Southern District.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order to Show Cause regarding transfer of the motion to the Southern District of California“The Court therefore orders Movant to show cause as to why this matter should not be transferred to the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3), motions to quash or compel compliance with subpoenas must be made in the district of compliance. The order recites that the non-party resides in Oceanside, CA (San Diego County), which is within the Southern District of California. For the deposition subpoena, Rule 30(b)(4) places the deposition where the deponent answers, further supporting the Southern District as the proper venue. For the document subpoena, the court cites *York Holding* to support the proposition that the location of the subpoenaed non-party is the district of compliance. Therefore, the current court (S.D. Cal., but likely a different division or simply the wrong district based on the 'MC' case number which often denotes a specific magistrate or division, though the prompt says S.D. Cal, the order implies a transfer *to* S.D. Cal, suggesting the current court might be a different district or the court is treating the Oceanside location as distinct from the current forum's proper jurisdiction for this specific non-party). *Correction*: The case number is MC 24-00164. 'MC' often stands for a specific magistrate or division, but in the context of the prompt saying 'Court: District Court, S.D. California', there is a slight ambiguity. However, the order explicitly states the district of compliance is the Southern District of California and orders a show cause for transfer *to* the Southern District. This implies the current court believes it is *not* the proper district of compliance, or is exercising discretion to transfer. Given the address is in Oceanside (S.D. Cal.), and the court is S.D. Cal., the transfer order seems procedurally odd unless the 'MC' designation implies a specific local rule or the court is referring to a different district (e.g., if the case was filed in C.D. Cal. or N.D. Cal. but the prompt says S.D. Cal.). *Re-reading prompt*: 'Court: District Court, S.D. California'. If the court is S.D. Cal., and the compliance district is S.D. Cal., why transfer? Perhaps the 'MC' case number indicates it was filed in a specific division or the court is applying a local rule. However, based strictly on the text, the court finds the district of compliance is S.D. Cal. and orders show cause for transfer *to* S.D. Cal. This suggests the court views itself as not being the proper forum, or is using 'transfer' loosely to mean 'reassign' or the prompt's court identification is the *target* court and the order is from a different one? No, the prompt says 'Court: District Court, S.D. California'. Let's assume the court is S.D. Cal. and is ordering a show cause for transfer *within* the district or to a specific division, or the court is mistaken. *Alternative interpretation*: The case number MC 24-00164 might be from a different district (e.g., C.D. Cal. uses 'MC' for Magistrate Judge? No, C.D. Cal. uses 'MC' for Magistrate Judge? Actually, C.D. Cal. case numbers often start with 2:24-cv-... or similar. S.D. Cal. uses 3:24-cv-... The prompt says Docket: 3:25-cv-00053 but the order says MC 24-00164. This is a discrepancy. The order is from 'The Honorable ROZELLA A. OLIVER, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE'. Rozella Oliver is a Magistrate Judge in the **Central District of California**. The prompt says 'Court: District Court, S.D. California'. This is a factual error in the prompt's metadata vs the order's content. The order is from C.D. Cal. (Judge Oliver). The non-party is in S.D. Cal. Therefore, the C.D. Cal. court is ordering a transfer to S.D. Cal. This makes perfect sense. I will treat the 'Court' in the prompt as the source of the order, but the reasoning relies on the jurisdictional facts. The model view should agree with the court's application of Rule 45(d)(3) because the non-party is in S.D. Cal., and the court (likely C.D. Cal. based on Judge Oliver) is not the district of compliance. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3), which requires that motions regarding subpoenas be brought in the district of compliance. The court identifies the non-party's location (Oceanside, CA) as being in the Southern District of California. It correctly distinguishes between the deposition subpoena (where the deponent answers) and the document subpoena (where the non-party is located), citing appropriate rules and case law (*York Holding*) to support the conclusion that the Southern District of California is the proper venue. The order to show cause is a standard procedural mechanism to allow the movant to argue against transfer or to voluntarily dismiss and refile, which is a reasonable and legally sound approach given the jurisdictional defect.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: MC 24-00164 MRA (RAOx) Date: January 7, 2025 Title: In Re Third Party Subpoenas Issued to Florence Paau Present: The Honorable ROZELLA A. OLIVER, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Eddie Ramirez N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):
N/A N/A Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On December 23, 2024, Movant American Airlines, Inc. (“Movant”) filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas Issued to Non-Party Florence Paau (“Paau”). Dkt. No. 1. There are two subpoenas at issue—a subpoena for production of documents and a deposition subpoena. Dkt. Nos. 1-5, 1-6. The address listed for Paau on both subpoenas and the proof of service is in Oceanside, CA. Id.; see also Dkt. Nos. 1-7, 1-8. The deposition subpoena provides that the deposition will take place by videoconference. Dkt. No. 1-6. The documents subpoena lists an address of compliance in Los Angeles, CA. Dkt. No. 1-5. Motions related to subpoenas must be brought in the district of compliance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3), (f), (g); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Advisory Committee’s Note to 2013 Amendment (“To protect local nonparties, local resolution of disputes about subpoenas is assured by the limitations of Rule 45(c) and the requirements in Rules 45(d) and (e) that motions be made in the court in which compliance is required under Rule 45(c).”). As to the deposition subpoena, it appears that the district of compliance is the Southern District of California, in light of Paau’s address in Oceanside, CA, a city within San Diego County. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4) (“[T]he deposition takes place where the deponent answers the questions.”). As to the documents subpoena, although a subpoena-related motion could be heard in this district, it appears that the motion could also be heard in the Southern District of California in light of Paau’s location. See York Holding, Ltd. v. Waid, 345 F.R.D. 626, 628-630 (D. Nev. 2024) (collecting cases finding that location of subpoenaed nonparty is district of compliance). The Court therefore orders Movant to show cause as to why this matter should not be transferred to the Southern District of California. Movant’s response shall be due by January 14, CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: MC 24-00164 MRA (RAOx) Date: January 7, 2025 Title: In Re Third Party Subpoenas Issued to Florence Paau 2025. Alternatively, Movant may dismiss this matter without prejudice and re-file it in the Southern District of California. IT IS SO ORDERED. : Initials of Preparer er