Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02035/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332ct Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

1

15-cv-02035-AJB-JLB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dennis Montgomery,

Plaintiff,

v.

James Risen, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-cv-02035-AJB-JLB

Order Denying Motion for 

Reconsideration of Motion to Compel 

Compliance with Subpoena to Michael 

Flynn

[ECF No. 10]

Plaintiff’s pending motion, titled “Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to

Compel Compliance with Subpoena to Michael Flynn, or in the Alternative, Expedited 

Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order of October 30, 2015” (ECF No. 10), is DENIED 

for the following reasons:

1. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this Court’s Order under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 59, but fails to present facts, evidence, or law demonstrating that 

reconsideration is warranted under Rule 59. See 389 Orange St. Partners v. 

Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Under Rule 59(e), a motion for 

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless 

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 

error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”);

2. As this Court previously held, this district court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the 

subpoena at issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g). (ECF No. 9.) 

Plaintiff fails to address this. Instead, Plaintiff argues that this district court has 

Case 3:15-cv-02035-AJB-JLB Document 11 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 3
2

15-cv-02035-AJB-JLB

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

personal jurisdiction over Mr. Flynn because he was served within this district. 

(ECF No. 10 at 2.) This argument is misplaced.1 Plaintiff chose to serve a 

subpoena with a place of compliance that appears to be within 100 miles of the 

address listed for Mr. Flynn, but that place of compliance is nonetheless a city 

outside of this district. Therefore, there is no authority for this Court’s jurisdiction. 

(ECF No. 9); see also AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., No. 12cv3393, 2014 

WL 6706873, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014) (“‘[u]nder the current version of the 

Rule [45], when a motion to quash a subpoena is filed in a court other than the 

court where compliance is required, that court lacks jurisdiction to resolve the 

motion.’”); Sandifer v. Hoyt Archery, Inc., No. 12cv322, 2014 WL 3540812, at *4 

(M.D. La. July 17, 2014) (“Any motion . . . to compel Mr. Ragsdale’s compliance 

with a Rule 45 subpoena should have first been filed in the district where the 

discovery is or will be taken or where compliance is required.”); SynQor, Inc. v. 

Vicor Corp., No. 14mc79, 2014 WL 2519242, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 3, 2014) 

(“[B]ecause the underlying case is not pending in this Court and because the 

subpoenas notice . . . depositions for a location in another district, this Court has no 

basis or authority to address these subpoenas under Rule 26 or Rule 45.”);

3. The Court remains unpersuaded that Plaintiff effectuated proper service of the 

subpoena. For example, the record is still deficient with respect to whether the 

fees and costs for mileage were tendered to Mr. Flynn for 1 day’s attendance at 

deposition as required by Rule 45. Counsel’s vague, untimely, and unsworn claims 

that “any and all witness fees were sent by U.S. Mail” do not constitute evidence 

that the fees and mileage were tendered as required by Rule 45. (ECF No. 10 at 2); 

and

 

1 Although not relied on for purposes of this order, the Court notes that contrary to Plaintiff’s factual 

assertion otherwise, the District Court for the Central District of California’s Southern Division appears 

to be less than 100 miles from the Rancho Santa Fe address listed for Mr. Flynn on the Proof of Service

filed in this case. (See ECF No. 10 at 2; ECF No. 6.3 at 5.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02035-AJB-JLB Document 11 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 3
3

15-cv-02035-AJB-JLB

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

4. Finally, Plaintiff’s motion was filed in violation of this district court’s local rules 

and the chambers rules for both Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt and District 

Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff believes that he has 

successfully filed other motions in addition to the instant motion for 

reconsideration (specifically an objection to the undersigned’s October 30, 2015 

Order and a motion for an expedited hearing of that objection), the Court clarifies 

that he has not. Such motions must be filed separately and in compliance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Civil Local Rule 7.1, and the Civil Case 

Procedures for the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-02035-AJB-JLB Document 11 Filed 11/05/15 Page 3 of 3