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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABKCO MUSIC, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM SAGAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-mc-80017-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING THIRD-PARTY’S 

MOTION TO QUASH

Docket No. 1

Third Party George Ivan Morrison (“Van Morrison”) has moved to quash a subpoena 

served on him by Defendants in relation to a case pending in the Southern District of New York. 

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court GRANTS the 

motion to quash.

Van Morrison argues that the subpoena should be quashed for both procedural and 

substantive reasons. Because the Court agrees that there is a procedural defect with the subpoena, 

it need not address the substantive arguments raised by Van Morrison.

There is a procedural defect with the subpoena because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 

provides that “[a] subpoena may command a person to attend . . . a deposition only as follows: (A) 

within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in 

person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1). Here, the subpoena served on Van Morrison commanded that 

he appear for a deposition in San Francisco, California. See Adamson Decl., Ex. A (subpoena). 

But there is insufficient evidence that San Francisco is within 100 miles of where Van Morrison 

resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business. Defendants contend that Van Morrison has a 

residence in Mill Valley, California, noting that (1) Van Morrison owned certain real property 

there from at least February 1982 to 2010 and that (2) even though a corporate entity is now the 

Case 3:17-mc-80017-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/07/17 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

For the Northern District of California

formal owner of that property, he still has an interest in the property as reflected by the fact that 

his daughter lives there. See Opp’n at 13-14 (emphasizing Van Morrison’s admission in his 

declaration that his daughter resides in Mill Valley). The problem for Defendants is that, even 

accepting the evidence of prior and current ownership1and of Van Morrison’s daughter’s 

residence, that is still insufficient evidence of residence on the part of Van Morrison. Even if the 

Court assumes that Van Morrison has a current ownership interest in the Mill Valley real property, 

ownership in and of itself does not establish or even give rise to a prima facie case of residence. A 

person may easily own real property, e.g., as an investment, without residing there.2 Moreover, 

the Court has before it a declaration from Van Morrison testifying that he resides in Northern 

Ireland. See Van Morrison Decl. ¶ 2.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is insufficient evidence that Van Morrison 

resides in Mill Valley and thus quashes the subpoena. Van Morrison’s motion is granted. The 

Court instructs Van Morrison to serve this order on Plaintiff ABKCO Music, Inc., within three (3) 

days from the date of this order and to file a proof of service with the Court.

This order disposes of Docket No. 1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

 

1

For purposes of this opinion, the Court considers the evidence of prior and current ownership 

even though Van Morrison has objected to it on various grounds. See Reply at 3 n.2 (arguing that 

the evidence “lack[s] foundation, [is] not authenticated, and [is] inadmissible hearsay”).

2

This is true even accepting the proposition that a person may have more than one residence (as 

opposed to domicile).

Case 3:17-mc-80017-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/07/17 Page 2 of 2