E-Imagedata Corporation v. Digital Check Corp.
2:16-cv-01761
D. Nev.Aug 29, 2016Background
- e-Imagedata sued Digital Check in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and served discovery subpoenas on non-party Total Imaging Solutions (TIS).
- The subpoena directed TIS to produce documents and appear for a deposition in Costa Mesa, California (Central District of California).
- TIS is based in Las Vegas, Nevada and moved to quash the subpoena by filing in the District of Nevada.
- e-Imagedata opposed, arguing the motion to quash must be brought in the district where compliance was required (Central District of California).
- The magistrate judge concluded the Nevada court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion to quash because Rule 45 requires challenges be filed in the district where compliance is required.
- TIS alternatively asked to transfer the subpoena proceedings to the Northern District of California; the court denied that request for lack of connection to that district.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for a Rule 45 motion to quash | Motion must be in district where compliance is required (Costa Mesa, CA) | Motion may be heard where subpoenaed party resides (Nevada) | Motion must be filed in district where compliance was sought (Central District of CA); Nevada court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether court should transfer subpoenas to Northern District of CA | N/A (opposed jurisdiction in Nevada) | Request transfer to N.D. Cal. | Denied — no connection to N.D. Cal. shown |
Key Cases Cited
(No cases with official reporter citations were relied on in the opinion.)