Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02953/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02953-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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

BENCHMARK YOUNG ADULT

SCHOOL, INC., DBA BENCHMARK

TRANSITIONS,

Civil

No.

12cv2953-BTM (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 31]

v.

LAUNCHWORKS LIFE SERVICES,

LLC DBA MARK HOUSTON

RECOVERY CENTER and

BENCHMARK RECOVERY CENTER,

Defendant.

On December 20, 2013, the parties called regarding a discovery dispute.

Plaintiff’s counsel represented that the dispute concerned the deposition testimony of

Jana Triplett and Defendant’s instruction for her not to answer certain deposition

questions based on the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. Based

on the representation of the dispute, and the parties inability to resolve the dispute

through the meet and confer process, the Court allowed Plaintiff to file the pending

motion to compel. (Doc. No. 30.)

After reviewing the parties’ briefing in support of and in opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, it has come to the Court’s attention that the parties

failed to inform the Court that the dispute stemmed from a deposition of a thirdparty witness who was subpoenaed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. 

1 12cv2953-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02953-BAS-BGS Document 39 Filed 02/12/14 Page 1 of 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

This fact is relevant to the dispute because the subpoena issued and the deposition

was taken prior to the effective date of the 2013 Amendment to Rule 45. Prior to

December 1, 2013, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 required the subpoena to be

issued from the court for the district where the deposition is to be taken. (Fed. R.

Civ. P. 45(a)(2)(B). Motions to quash a subpoena that “overbears the limits of the

subpoena power,” as well as motions for enforcement of the subpoena must be

presented to the court for the district in which the deposition would occur. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 45 advisory committee’s notes to the 1991 Amendment. 

The deposition of Jana Triplett was set to take place and did take place at

the law offices of Call & Jensen, 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700, Newport

Beach, California. Thus, the deposition occurred in the Central District of California and the court that should have been presented with the a motion for enforcement

of the subpoena—including resolving issues of privilege— is the court for the

Central District of California. See Lieberman v. American Dietectic Ass’n, 1995 1

WL 250414 at *1 (N.D. Ill. April 25,1995) (holding sua sponte it did not have

jurisdiction to entertain either the motion to compel or motion to quash because the

deposition was to take place in a different district (citing In re Digital Equipement

Corp., 949 F.2d 228, 231 (8th Cir. 1991) (vacating discovery orders entered by

South Dakota District Court because the Oregon district court had jurisdiction to

rule on objections including issues of privilege)).

Accordingly, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel without

prejudice because this is not the proper forum to seek enforcement of the subpoena. 

///

///

Although Plaintiff’s counsel incorrectly served a subpoena drafted as if it was from the 1

United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the proper court to issue the

subpoena and be presented with motions to quash, as well as motions to enforce the subpoena is

the United States District Court for the Central District of California—the court for the district

where the deposition was noticed to take place and did take place. See Def.’s Opp’n at Ex. 3;

Doc. No. 36-3.

2 12cv2953-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02953-BAS-BGS Document 39 Filed 02/12/14 Page 2 of 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

The dispute over Ms. Triplett’s deposition may raised in the District Court for the

Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 11, 2014

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

3 12cv2953-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02953-BAS-BGS Document 39 Filed 02/12/14 Page 3 of 3