Tomahawk Manufacturing, Inc. v. Spherical Industries, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 TOMAHAWK MANUFACTURING, INC., 6 et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01007-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket Nos. 271, 272] 9 SPHERICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is a motion to quash the subpoena for the deposition of nonparty 12 Alejandro Angulo, which Defendants filed on an emergency basis. Docket No. 272; see also 13 Docket No. 271 (declaration improperly filed as a motion). The motion to quash is DENIED 14 without prejudice. 15 A motion to quash a subpoena must be filed in “the court for the district where compliance 16 is required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). “When it appears that subpoena-related motion practice 17 may have been filed in the wrong district, the Court may raise that potential defect sua sponte.” 18 4R4 Sons, LLC v. Tru G. Wilhelm, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01081-GMN-NJK, 2022 WL 2905468, at *3 19 n.3 (D. Nev. July 22, 2022) (citing Gutierrez v. Uni Trans, LLC, 2021 WL 2821071, at *3 (D.N.M. 20 July 7, 2021)). The movant bears the burden of showing that a motion to quash was filed in the 21 correct district. York Holding, Ltd. v. Waid, ___ F.R.D. ____, 2024 WL 1432783, at *1 (D. Nev. 22 Apr. 3, 2024). When a subpoena-related motion has been filed in the wrong district, courts 23 routinely deny that motion without prejudice to refiling it in the proper tribunal. See, e.g., Europlay 24 Cap. Advisors, LLC v. Does, 323 F.R.D. 628, 629-30 (C.D. Cal. 2018).1 25 1 The rules provide the potential for transferring a subpoena-related motion from the court 26 where compliance is required to the issuing court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). The authority to make this decision rests with the court where compliance is required. See id. “As such, this 27 provision does not allow a movant to bypass, in the first instance, the court for the district where compliance is required.” York Holding, 2024 WL 1432783, at *1 n.2 (citing Omnitracs, LLC v. 28 Platform Sci., Inc., No. 20-cv-958-CAB-DDL, 2023 WL 2815363, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2023)). ] In this case, the papers indicate that the deponent is a California barred attorney, who is 2 located in California, and who will be deposed in California. Docket No. 271 at 2-4; Docket No. 271-2. The motion provides no basis on which to conclude that the motion to quash is properly 4|| filed in this district. See Docket No. 272. 5 Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED without prejudice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: April 3, 2024 Nancy J. Koppe 9 United StatésMagistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28