Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05203/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05203-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 No courtesy copy of the letter-brief opposition (Docket #75) was provided to the Court until

November 14, 2005.

2

 The Court notes that the caption for that motion indicates it may have been filed in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HYPERTOUCH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KENNEDY-WESTERN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-05203 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

On November 8, 2005, defendant Kennedy-Western University filed1 an Opposition to Motion for

Protective Order. The Motion for Protective Order, dated November 4, 2005 and attached as Exhibit A to

Kennedy-Western’s Opposition, was apparently initiatedbynon-partyBeyond Systems, Inc. (“BSI”). It does

not appear, however, that BSI’s Motion for Protective Order was ever actually filed in this Court because it

is not on the docket.2 Kennedy-Western seeks an order compelling BSI to comply with a subpoena issued

by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The subpoena directs BSI to produce

documents and a designee for deposition on November 22, 2005, at an office in Baltimore, Maryland. 

The Court concludes that this is not the proper forum for deciding whether to quash or compel

compliance with the subpoena, and that this matter must be brought before the United States DistrictCourt for

the District of Maryland. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides that a subpoena for attendance at a

deposition, with an accompanying command to produce evidence, shall issue from the court for the district

Case 3:04-cv-05203-SI Document 76 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

designated by the notice of deposition as the district in which the deposition is to be taken, which in this case

is the District of Maryland. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(a)(2). Although Kennedy-Western initially issued the

subpoena from this Court, it later corrected the error by issuing the subpoena from the District Court in

Maryland. Rule 45 further provides that if an objection is made to such a subpoena, “the party serving the

subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an

order of the court by which the subpoena was issued.” Id. at 45(c)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Rule 45 also

states that “[o]n timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the

subpoena” if the subpoena is unreasonable, imposes an undue burden, or requires the disclosure of privileged

information. Id. at 45(c)(3)(A) (emphasis added).

Here, the District of Maryland issued the subpoena, and the deposition and production of documents

are to take place in Maryland. Thus, according to the language of Rule 45, the proper forum for deciding

controversiesregardingthe subpoena is the District ofMaryland. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Kennedy-Maryland’s request to enforce the subpoena.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05203-SI Document 76 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 2