Webb v. County of Stanislaus ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAYLOR WEBB, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01716-DAD-EPG 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW 14 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 50) 16 17 Before the Court is an ex parte application filed by Plaintiffs Taylor Webb, Jeremy 18 Westfall, and A.W., by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Donnie R. Cox (“Plaintiffs”) seeking 19 an order requiring nonparty Paula Webb to show cause why she should not be found in contempt 20 of court for her failure to comply with a subpoena. (ECF No. 50.) For the following reasons, 21 Plaintiffs’ application will be denied without prejudice. 22 Plaintiffs filed their application on April 23, 2021. (ECF No. 50.) According to the 23 application, Plaintiffs issued a subpoena commanding Paula Webb to appear for a deposition on 24 April 2, 2021, at 10:00 AM at DepomaxMerit Litigation Services, 333 S. Rio Grande, Salt Lake 25 City, UT 84101. (ECF No. 50-1.) Paula Webb was personally served with the subpoena on March 26 19, 2021, but failed to appear at the deposition. (Id.) 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs issuance of subpoenas to nonparties. See Fed. 28 R. Civ. P. 45. Under Rule 45, motions regarding depositions of nonparties, including motions to 1 | hold a person in contempt for failure to obey a subpoena, are to be decided by “the court for the 2 | district where compliance is required.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g); see also BNSF Ry. Co. v. Alere, 3 | Inc., 2018 WL 2267144, at *10 (S.D. Cal. May 17, 2018) (“[Rule 45] contemplates that the 4 | enforcement... of a subpoena must issue from the district where compliance is required.”’). 5 | “When the court where compliance is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a 6 | motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the 7 | court finds exceptional circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). The issuing court otherwise lacks 8 | jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena if compliance will occur in another district. See, e.g., 9 | Europlay Cap. Advisors, LLC v. Does, 323 F.R.D. 628, 629 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (denying motion to 10 | compel a response to a subpoena due to lack of jurisdiction where compliance would occur in 11 || another district); BNSF Ry. Co., 2018 WL 2267144, at *10 (same); Youngevity Int’l, Corp. v. 12 | Smith, 2017 WL 6418961, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017) (holding that the court lacked 13 | jurisdiction to enforce a subpoena under Rule 45 where the place of compliance was in another 14 | district). 15 Here, Plaintiffs move this Court for an order for Paula Webb to show cause why she 16 should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena that required her to attend a 17 | deposition in Salt Lake City, Utah. Although this Court is the issuing court, the United States 18 | District Court for the District of Utah is the court for the district where compliance is required. 19 || The application was filed with this Court in the first instance and was not transferred from the 20 | District of Utah. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena and will deny 21 | Plaintiffs’ application without prejudice. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an 23 | Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt (ECF No. 50) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 | Dated: _ April 30, 2021 [le ey — 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28