Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-100/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

ORDER ON MOTIONS RE EXPERT 

DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 694, 714

Defendant Almawave USA, Inc. (“Almawave”) filed two administrative motions for leave 

to file unilateral letter briefs regarding its document and deposition subpoenas to Plaintiff Loop AI 

Labs Inc.’s two designated experts, Dr. Elliot A. Fishman and Jesus E. Reyes, Jr. Plaintiff filed its

oppositions thereto. [Docket Nos. 694, 706, 714, 716.] 

The document subpoenas were issued by the Northern District of California but they call 

for compliance in New York. [Docket No. 694 Ex. A.] Pursuant to the plain language of Rule 45, 

this court does not currently have authority to decide the motion. Motions to compel compliance 

with subpoenas are decided by the “court for the district where compliance is required.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i) (“the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is 

required for an order compelling production or inspection”). “When the court where compliance 

is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a motion under [Rule 45] 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). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the 

document subpoenas unless and until Almawave moves to compel the witnesses’ compliance with 

the subpoenas in the “court for the district where compliance is required,” and such a motion is 

transferred to this Court. Docket No. 694 is therefore denied.

As to Almawave’s motion regarding its subpoenas for expert deposition testimony, those 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 719 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 2
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

subpoenas seek Fishman and Reyes’s appearance for depositions in San Francisco on May 31, 

2016 and June 1, 2016, respectively. [Docket No. 714 Ex. A.] It appears that the parties agreed 

that the witnesses would appear for depositions in New York on June 1, 2016 and June 2, 2016. 

See Docket No. 674 Ex. 2 (May 11, 2016 letter confirming deposition schedule), Docket No. 716 

at 2. Accordingly, the parties’ dispute about Fishman and Reyes’s appearances for depositions 

appears to be moot. Docket No. 714 is therefore denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 719 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 2