Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01996/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01996-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17cv1996-BAS (MSB)

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

MARSHA WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLD GRINGO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv1996-BAS (MSB)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION RE: 

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFF’S SUBPOENAS FOR 

DOCUMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES 

CAVENDER, LTD. AND BOOT BARN, INC. 

[ECF NO. 211]

On January 10, 2020, Defendants Old Gringo, Inc. (“OGI”), Old Gringo, S.A. de C.V. 

(“OGS”), Yan Ferry, and Ernest Tarut filed an “Ex Parte Motion Re: Defendants’ Objections 

to Plaintiff’s Subpoenas for Documents to Third Parties Cavender, Ltd. and Boot Barn, 

Inc.” (“Objection Motion”). (ECF No. 211.) Plaintiff filed her Opposition on January 14, 

2020. (ECF NO. 217.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ 

Objection Motion without prejudice. 

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendants assert, without providing evidence, that Plaintiff served Rule 45 

subpoenas for documents on third parties, Cavender, Ltd. and Boot Barn, Inc., on either 

January 2, 2020 or January 3, 2020, with production due on January 13, 2020, the cut-off 

date for OGS-related discovery. (ECF No. 211 at 2, ECF No. 211-1 at 2; see also ECF No. 

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 228 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv1996-BAS (MSB)

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

179 at 4-5.) Defendants also state in their pleading that Plaintiff served Defendants on 

January 3, 2020. (ECF No. 211 at 2, ECF No. 211-1 at 2.) After attempting to meet and 

confer with Plaintiff’s counsel to file a joint motion for determination of discovery dispute, 

Defendants filed the instant Objection Motion on January 10, 2020. (ECF No. 211.) 

II. DISCUSSION

In their Objection Motion, Defendants raise both procedural and substantive 

objections, and ask this Court to “take action” on said objections, without explaining what 

action Defendants seeks from the Court. (ECF No. 211.) Specifically, Defendants object 

that (1) the subpoenas were untimely because Plaintiff did not permit the subpoenaed 

parties a reasonable time to respond; (2) Plaintiff failed to provide Defendants with 

advance notice of the third-party subpoenas, and (3) the subpoenas seek specific sales 

figures of OGS customers, to which this Court has previously denied discovery to Plaintiff. 

(Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ Objection Motion, noting that (1) the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a party to file objections to a Rule 45 subpoena to 

a third party, and (2) any motion to quash must be filed in the district where compliance 

was demanded. (ECF No. 217 at 2-3.) 

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs the procedure by which a party can 

compel a non-party to produce documents and tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c). A 

Rule 45 subpoena may issue from the court where the action is pending and compel a 

non-party to produce documents “at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, 

is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2), 

45(c)(2)(A). 

The procedures for protecting a third-party subject to enforcement or challenging 

a subpoena are set forth in Rule 45, subsection (d), which permits the subpoenaed party

to serve objections on the subpoenaing party the earlier of the date of production, or 14 

days after service of the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). The demanding party may 

then bring a motion to compel in the district where compliance is required. Fed. R. Civ. 

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 228 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv1996-BAS (MSB)

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

P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). Rule 45 also provides for various circumstances when the “court for the 

district where compliance is required” is required or permitted to grant a motion to quash 

or modify a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). Finally, the rule specifies the circumstances 

under which a motion brought under this section may be transferred from “the court 

where compliance is required” to the “issuing court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Such transfer 

is permitted when “the person subject to the subpoena consents or [] the court finds 

exceptional circumstances.” Id. “The issuing court does not have authority to quash a 

subpoena unless, of course, compliance is also required in that the same district where 

that court sits.” H.I.S.C, Inc. v. Franmar Int'l Importers, Ltd., Case No. 16-CV-480-

BEN(WVG), 2018 WL 2095738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2018).

B. Defendants’ Objections are Procedurally Improper. 

In the first instance, Rule 45 does not permit a party to interfere with a subpoena 

by serving or filing objections. Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 636 (C.D. Cal. 

2005) (“A party cannot object to a subpoena duces tecum served on a non-party, but 

rather, must seek a protective order or make a motion to quash.”) (citing Schwarzer, 

Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶ 

11:2291 (2005 rev.)). However, even if this Court were to construe Defendants’ motion 

as a Motion to Quash, see Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Nagby, Case No. 16-CV-3038-

BTM(WVG), 2018 WL 1963665, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2018) (considering possibility of 

construing defendant’s objections as motion to quash), Defendants have not submitted 

any evidence that this Court has jurisdiction to rule on such a motion. Defendants did not 

submit the subpoenas or anything else to indicate in which district compliance was 

required. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 228 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv1996-BAS (MSB)

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

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Objection Motion is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 228 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4