Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80315/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80315-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

TRENDSETTAH USA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SWISHER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-mc-80315-JSC 

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION TO 

TRANSFER OR DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 6

This miscellaneous action pertains to an antitrust dispute now pending in the Central 

District of California. Plaintiffs Trendsettah USA, Inc. and Trend Settah, Inc. (together, 

“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Swisher International, Inc. (“Defendant”) engaged in certain 

anticompetitive conduct, including disparaging Plaintiff’s competing band of cigarillos, a type of 

small cigar. Defendant filed this miscellaneous action to enforce three subpoenas issued to third 

parties who have knowledge of Defendant’s alleged anticompetitive conduct. (Dkt. No. 2.) 

Specifically, Defendant seeks an order to show cause why third parties SM Brothers, Inc., 

Sandeep Mehat, Polk & Green Market, and Allmey Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Toby’s Vapes & More 

(collectively, the “Third Parties”) should not be held in civil contempt for failing to comply with 

the subpoenas and an order compelling their compliance. (Id.) 

The Third Parties neither responded to the subpoenas nor to Defendant’s motion. Instead, 

now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to transfer this enforcement action to the 

Central District of California or, in the alternative, to dismiss the action altogether. (Dkt. No. 6.) 

Two of the subpoenas were issued to Third Parties located in Chowchilla, California, which is in 

the Eastern District of California, while one was served here in San Francisco. (Dkt. No. 3 ¶ 10 & 

Ex. D; id. ¶ 13 & Ex. G.)

Case 3:15-mc-80315-JSC Document 12 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 states that “[a]t any time, on notice to the commanded 

person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an 

order compelling production or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). Further, the “court 

where compliance is required . . . may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails 

without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). 

Thus, Defendant’s motion as to the two Third Parties located in the Eastern District of California 

was brought in the wrong court; the Northern District, as neither the issuing court nor the court 

where compliance is required, has no authority to order compliance or find these parties in 

contempt.

Recognizing this error, Defendant asks the Court to transfer its motion to the Central 

District of California pursuant to Rule 45(f). That Rule provides that “[w]hen the court where 

compliance is required 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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) 2013 Advisory Committee 

Notes (“If the person subject to the subpoena consents to transfer, Rule 45(f) provides that the 

court where compliance is required may do so.”). Plaintiff represents that the subpoenaed Third 

Parties all consent to transfer of this miscellaneous action to the courtroom of the Honorable 

James Selna in the Southern Division of the Central District of California, where the underlying 

case is pending. (Dkt. No. 6 at 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel avers that he spoke with the Third Parties 

and explained the posture of the case, and that the Third Parties “advised [him] that they consent 

to having this issue transferred to the trial court in the Central District.” (Dkt. No. 6-1 ¶ 5.) And 

indeed, Defendant agrees that transfer to the Central District is appropriate provided that the Third 

Parties consent to the transfer in writing. (Dkt. No. 8 at 2.) 

But this Court has no authority to transfer Defendant’s motion as to the Third Parties 

located in the Eastern District of California. By its express terms, Rule 45(f) allows for transfer by 

“the court where compliance is required.” The Northern District of California is not such a court 

for the Eastern District Third Parties. “[W]hen subpoena-related motions are filed in the wrong 

court, Rule 45(f) does not provide a means for transferring those motions to the court that issued 

Case 3:15-mc-80315-JSC Document 12 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

the subpoenas.” Agincourt Gaming, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-0708-RFB-NJK, 2014 WL 

4079555 *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2014).

Defendant’s citation to Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990), is 

unavailing as Miller (and 28 U.S.C. § 1631) do not address the very specific language of Rule 45.

Even if section 1631 applied, the Court does not find that it would be “in the interests of justice” 

to transfer Defendant’s motion to the Central District of California or the Eastern District of 

California. Rule 45 is designed to encourage parties to enforce subpoenas in districts that reduce 

the inconvenience to third parties as much as possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) 2013 Advisory 

Committee Notes (“To protect local nonparties, local resolution of disputes about subpoenas is 

assured by the limitations of Rule 45(c) and the requirements in Rules 45(d) and (e) that motions 

be made in the court in which compliance is required under Rule 45(c).”). To simply transfer 

Defendant’s improperly filed motion would encourage parties to not take care to file motions in 

the proper courts, thus necessitating the third party to defend in a distant court, which is 

inconsistent with the Rules’ long-held emphasis on minimizing the discovery burden on third 

parties. See U.S. v. McGraw-Hill Cos., 302 F.R.D. 532, 534-35 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (collecting cases 

and discussing courts’ duty to shift third parties’ cost of compliance with subpoenas to ensure the 

third parties’ burden in responding is not significant); see also High Tech Med. Instrumentation, 

Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 161 F.R.D. 86, 88 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“Both the language of [the 

Federal Rules] and that of the Ninth Circuit . . . make clear that sanctions are appropriate if the 

subpoenaing party fails to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden on a third 

party.”) (citing former Rule 45(c)(1), now Rule 45(d)(1)). Further, a transfer in these 

circumstances would vitiate Rule 45’s requirement of third party consent. The Eastern District 

Third Parties allegedly consent to transfer to the Central District only as an alternative to 

dismissal. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for an order to show cause and for an order of 

compliance as to the Third Parties located in the Eastern District of California is DENIED.

The subpoena served on Polk & Green Market is enforceable here—the court where 

compliance is required—and thus may be transferred pursuant to Rule 45(f). But Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s representation is not enough to establish Polk & Green’s consent to transfer unless

Case 3:15-mc-80315-JSC Document 12 Filed 01/14/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

counsel is Polk & Green’s attorney. Accordingly, by January 19, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel shall

file a supplemental declaration stating that he is acting as the attorney for Polk & Green and in that 

capacity avers that Polk & Green consents to transfer. In the alternative, Polk & Green must itself 

consent in writing to transfer pursuant to Rule 45(f). If no such consent is filed, the motion for 

compliance and contempt will be heard as to Polk & Green on January 21, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

(please note the changed time).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-mc-80315-JSC Document 12 Filed 01/14/16 Page 4 of 4