Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-mc-80204/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-mc-80204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY W. FAITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMANTHA L. CARON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-mc-80204-DMR 

ORDER DENYING THIRD PARTIES' 

MOTION TO QUASH WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

This miscellaneous action relates to a proceeding pending before the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Jeremy W. Faith, Chapter 7 Trustee v. 

Samantha L. Caron, et al, 18-bk-11056 DS (“the bankruptcy action”). On August 7, 2019, the 

plaintiff in the bankruptcy action, Jeremy W. Faith, purportedly served a Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 45 subpoena on Google LLC (“Google”) seeking seven categories of documents, at 

least four of which relate to third parties Andrew S. Mansfield and Blythe M. Mansfield (“the 

Mansfields”). The Mansfields now move to quash the subpoena issued by Faith in the bankruptcy 

action. [Docket No. 1.] 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 permits any party to issue a subpoena commanding a 

non-party to “produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things 

in that person’s possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). A subpoena 

must issue from the court where the action is pending. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2). A motion to 

quash a subpoena must be brought before “the court for the district where compliance is required.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A), (B). In cases where the court of compliance did not issue the 

subpoena, it may “transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the 

subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f).

Here, the subpoena issued from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District 

Case 4:19-mc-80204-DMR Document 2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of California, where the underlying bankruptcy action is pending. A. Mansfield Decl., Aug. 13, 

2019, Ex. A. The subpoena appears to have been served on Google in Sacramento, California. Id. 

The subpoena explicitly directs Google to comply at the office of Faith’s attorney in Newport 

Beach, California, which is located in the Central District of California. Based on the facts 

appearing on the face of the subpoena, the Central District of California is both the issuing court 

and the court of compliance. As such, Rule 45 dictates that the Mansfields should have filed this 

motion in the Central District of California. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A), (B). Accordingly, the 

motion to quash is denied without prejudice to the Mansfields’ ability to refile in the proper court. 

Faith is ordered to immediately serve a copy of this order on Google. The Clerk of the Court shall 

close the file in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2019

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:19-mc-80204-DMR Document 2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 2