Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00852/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00852-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Default

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL ZAMANI, and NANCY MILLERWALLACE,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

H. GENE CARNES, PHILLIP CARNES,

JENNIFER CARNES, KATHRYN SCHALLER

and KEVIN SCHALLER,

Defendants. /

No. C03-00852 RMW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING THIRD-PARTY

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

[Re: Docket No. 130]

The instant lawsuit arises out of efforts by defendants (collectively “Carnes”) to enforce

a judgment awarded to them in a related action, Carnes v. Zamani, C00-20084 RMW. 

Presently before the court is non-party J.D. Sullivan’s “Emergency Motion to Shorten Time and

Quash Subpoena Issued From Wrong Court.” Sullivan is identified as plaintiffs’ former counsel

in the C00-20084 RMW action. He evidently is located in Minden, Nevada. He says that, on

May 13, 2008, plaintiff Michael Zamani served him with a subpoena for a May 20, 2008

deposition and document production to occur in Reno, Nevada. Zamani had the subpoena issue

from this court. Sullivan argues that the subpoena is void because it should have issued from

the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Based on the record presented, this

court finds that no hearing or any further briefing is necessary. For the reasons stated below,

the motion to quash will be granted.

*E-FILED 5/19/2008*

Case 5:03-cv-00852-RMW Document 133 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a non-party travel no more than 100

miles from his residence or place of business in responding to a discovery subpoena. See

FED.R.CIV.P. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). Additionally, a subpoena for attendance at a deposition or for the

production of documents must issue from the district court where the deposition or production

will take place. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(2)(B), (C). A subpoena that designates the wrong issuing

court is void. See Kupritz v. Savannah College of Art & Design, 155 F.R.D. 84, 88 (E.D. Pa.

1994). Here, the record presented indicates that Sullivan is located in Nevada, and the

subpoena in question seeks a deposition and document production there. It therefore appears

that plaintiff sought a subpoena from the wrong court. Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se

here, he is nonetheless obliged to adhere to rules that all litigants are required to follow. See

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding that pro per litigants must follow the

same procedural rules as represented parties). Accordingly, the motion to quash is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 19, 2008

Case 5:03-cv-00852-RMW Document 133 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

5:03-cv-852 Notice electronically mailed to: 

James R. Hales jim@rowehales.com, jimhales@nanosecond.com 

Jay Duncan Sullivan apollos7@hotmail.com, B2LAWYER@aol.com,

gkaufmann@mindenlaw.com, jd@mindenlaw.com, RHeckmann@altrionet.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

5:03-cv-852 Notice mailed to: 

Michael A Zamani

2214 Fruitdale Avenue

San Jose, CA 95128

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Nancy Miller-Wallace

684 Ashland Creek Drive

Ashland, OR 97520

Nancy Miller Wallace

762 Griffin Oaks Drive

Central Point, OR 97502

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Case 5:03-cv-00852-RMW Document 133 Filed 05/19/08 Page 3 of 3