Omnitracs, LLC v. Platform Science, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-00958 · 2023-04-06 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: David D. Leshner (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:04Z · confidence high

Defendant Platform Science requested a discovery conference regarding its subpoena to nonparty Vista Equity Partners, LLC, which designated Austin, Texas, as the place of compliance. The Court ordered that it lacks jurisdiction to rule on the dispute because the subpoena was not issued in the Southern District of California and no transfer from the District of Texas had occurred.

What the court decided	The model
The Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the discovery dispute regarding the subpoena to Vista Equity Partners, LLC. “the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to do so at this time. Accordingly, the Court may not rule on the parties’ dispute related to Platform Science’s subpoena to Vista unless and until the District Court where compliance is required transfers the matter to this District”	agree with court The order correctly applies Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2) and 45(d)(3)(A), which mandate that motions to compel or quash nonparty subpoenas be filed in the district where compliance is required. Since the subpoena designated Austin, Texas, as the place of compliance, the Southern District of California lacks jurisdiction absent a transfer under Rule 45(f). The Court correctly noted that the nonparty's consent to the S.D. Cal. jurisdiction does not cure the lack of jurisdiction without a formal transfer from the District of Texas.

What the court decided

The model

The Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the discovery dispute regarding the subpoena to Vista Equity Partners, LLC.

“the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to do so at this time. Accordingly, the Court may not rule on the parties’ dispute related to Platform Science’s subpoena to Vista unless and until the District Court where compliance is required transfers the matter to this District”

agree with court
The order correctly applies Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2) and 45(d)(3)(A), which mandate that motions to compel or quash nonparty subpoenas be filed in the district where compliance is required. Since the subpoena designated Austin, Texas, as the place of compliance, the Southern District of California lacks jurisdiction absent a transfer under Rule 45(f). The Court correctly noted that the nonparty's consent to the S.D. Cal. jurisdiction does not cure the lack of jurisdiction without a formal transfer from the District of Texas.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the specific Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing nonparty subpoenas. It correctly identifies that the place of compliance (Austin, Texas) dictates the proper venue for the motion to compel, and that the S.D. Cal. cannot assume jurisdiction without a transfer from the D. Tex. The citation to *Europlay* and *Youngevity* supports the jurisdictional limitation.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

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