Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Youssif Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC (2023-12-21) — remanded — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved for a protective order to quash 95 subpoenas served on third parties. The court denied the motion without prejudice for all subpoenas except one, citing lack of jurisdiction, and set a hearing for the single subpoena issued in the local district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' motion for a protective order regarding 94 of the 95 subpoenas is denied without prejudice.“Thus, except for the Bon Suisse subpoena, defendants’ motion is DENIED without prejudice to being refiled in the appropriate districts.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A), which mandates that a motion to quash or modify a subpoena must be made in the district where compliance is required. Since the court found that only one subpoena was issued in the Southern District of California, it correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining 94 subpoenas. Denying without prejudice is the appropriate procedural mechanism to allow the defendants to seek relief in the proper forums. |
A hearing is set for March 12, 2020, regarding the Bon Suisse subpoena.“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.” | agree with court The court retained jurisdiction over the single subpoena issued in its district and scheduled a hearing to address the merits of the motion for that specific subpoena. This is a standard procedural step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and correctly applies the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 45. It identifies the specific legal barrier (lack of jurisdiction for out-of-district subpoenas) and provides the correct procedural remedy (denial without prejudice). It does not skip any necessary arguments for the jurisdictional ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Youssif KAMAL, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-1298-BAS-AGS 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 12 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 48) 13 EDEN CREAMERY, LLC, et al., AND SETTING MOTION HEARING 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendants move for a protective order regarding 95 subpoenas that plaintiffs have 17 served on third parties. (ECF No. 48-1, at 1.) Defendants ask the Court to “order[] plaintiffs 18 to withdraw the Subpoenas . . . .” (Id. at 2.) 19 But only “the issuing court, and not the court where the underlying action is pending, 20 has the authority to consider motions to quash or modify subpoenas under [Rule 45].” 21 S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 2011). Only one of these 22 subpoenas, served on Bon Suisse, Inc., was issued in the Southern District of California. 23 (See ECF No. 48-5, at 1; ECF No. 48-7, at 1-2; ECF No. 48-9, at 1-5.) Because this district 24 is not “the district where compliance is required,” this Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on 25 defendants’ motion for all but the Bon Suisse subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). 26 Thus, except for the Bon Suisse subpoena, defendants’ motion is DENIED without 27 prejudice to being refiled in the appropriate districts. 28 1 On March 12, 2020, at 4:00 p.m., the Court will hear oral argument on the merits 2 ||of defendants’ motion with regard to the Bon Suisse subpoena. By March 4, 2020, the 3 || parties must independently contact Judge Schopler’s chambers to indicate whether they 4 || will appear in person or telephonically at this hearing. A party must call chambers by 5 p.m. if appearing telephonically. 6 || Dated: February 24, 2020 g Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc. 10-16384 · 2011-08-26