Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OBESITY RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE, LLC, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

FIBER RESEARCH 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 

 Defendant.

 Case No. 15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY RIEU 

SHIMIZU SHOULD NOT BE HELD 

IN CONTEMPT 

[ECF NO. 147] 

Originally filed in the District of Nevada, where the subject subpoena 

was served and required compliance, this dispute was transferred to this 

Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Accordingly, before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause why non-party Rieu Shimizu 

should not be held in contempt for failing to respond to or comply with the 

subpoena served upon him. (ECF No. 147). An opposition was filed in the 

District of Nevada by Defendant but is not relevant to these proceedings. 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 203 Filed 04/06/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

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

(ECF 148).1 

LEGAL STANDARD 

 Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs subpoenas to 

non-parties. Among other things, the rule provides in pertinent part: “A 

subpoena may command a person to attend a . . . deposition only as follows: 

(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly 

transacts business in person.” Rule 45(b)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

ANALYSIS 

 Mr. Shimizu was served with a Rule 45 subpoena in Las Vegas, 

Nevada, where it appears he was attending a trade show. See Application for 

Issuance of an Order to Show Cause (“Application”) at 6 (ECF No. 147 *6). 

Mr. Shimizu’s connection to this case is that he was listed in Defendant’s 

initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) as a person likely to have discoverable 

information. (ECF No. 147 *62). Defendant provided that Mr. Shimizu 

should be contacted through counsel for Defendant. (Id.). 

A district court must have personal jurisdiction over a non-party to 

compel him to comply with a discovery request under Rule 45. See Gucci 

Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122, 141 & n. 20 (2d Cir. 2014); NML 

Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 2015 WL 1186548 *9 (Nos. 2:14-cv492-RFB-VCF, 2:14-cv-1573-RFB-VCF, D. Nev. March 16, 2015.). For Mr. 

Shimizu to be subject to enforcement of this subpoena, the subpoena had to 

 

1 It appears from the pleading that Defendant believed that Plaintiff was 

filing a new lawsuit against Defendant on the same facts as in the instant 

litigation and challenged the propriety of Plaintiff doing so. The opposition, 

accordingly, is not relevant to determining whether Mr. Shimizu should show 

cause regarding contempt. 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 203 Filed 04/06/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

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

command compliance within 100 miles of his residence, place of employment 

or place where he regularly transacts business in person. Rule 45(b)(1). Mr. 

Shimizu is a resident of Japan. Declaration of Sean D. Flaherty in Support of 

Application ¶15 (ECF No. 147 *31). There is no evidence that he is employed 

anywhere in the United States. Nor is there evidence that he “regularly 

transacts business in person” in Nevada. Plaintiff baldly asserts that “Mr. 

Shimizu regularly transacts business in Las Vegas, Nevada” because of his 

attendance at the trade show where he was served. Application at 4-5 (ECF 

No. 147 *4-5); Flaherty Declaration ¶7 (ECF No. 147 *30 ¶7). The Court 

finds that Mr. Shimizu’s attendance at a trade show is insufficient evidence 

to conclude that Mr. Shimizu is subject to enforcement of this subpoena. 

Plaintiff also asserts that because Defendant is asserting rights in this 

case based upon assignment of rights from Shimizu Chemical Corporation, 

and that Mr. Shimizu is part of that company, that he is amenable to service 

as if he was employed by or regularly conducting business in person with 

Defendant. See Application at 3 (ECF No. 147 *3). Plaintiff has not asserted 

nor established that Defendant is an alter ego of Shimizu Chemical 

Corporation such that Mr. Shimizu is stripped of the protection provided to 

foreign non-parties under Rule 45. See NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of 

Argentina, 2015 WL 1186548 *9. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 203 Filed 04/06/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

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

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause why Rieu Shimizu 

should not be held in contempt is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 6, 2016

 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 203 Filed 04/06/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4