Vivint v. Bailie et al, No. 2:2015cv00685 - Document 44 (D. Utah 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDERdenying Motions to compel compliance with subpoenas re 31 , 35 MOTIONS to Expedite Short Form Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 11/21/16. (dla)

Download PDF
Vivint v. Bailie et al Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION VIVINT, INC., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Case No. 2:15-cv-00685-DAK-PMW v. CRAIG BAILIE et al., Defendants. District Judge Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner Before the court is Plaintiff Vivint, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motions to compel compliance with subpoenas served on Low Voltage Group, LLC (“LVG”) and Johnathan Anthony.1 At the time the subpoenas were served, LVG and Anthony (collectively “Respondents”) were not parties to this action. Respondents appear to reside in or around St. Charles, Missouri, more than 100 miles outside the District of Utah. Despite this, the subpoenas required Respondents to produced documents and things at the offices of Plaintiff’s counsel, which is located in the District of Utah.2 Counsel for Respondents served objections, including an objection to the location of production under rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.3 In response, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the current motions to compel compliance. “A subpoena may command: (A) production of documents, electronically stored 1 Docket nos. 31 and 35. 2 Docket no. 35-1 at 2 and 7. 3 Docket no. 35-2. Dockets.Justia.com information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2). Motions to quash or modify a subpoena or to compel compliance with a subpoena must be brought in “the court for the district where compliance is required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i) (in response to an objection, “the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3) (“the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify” an improper subpoena); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g) (“The court for the district where compliance is required . . . may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.”). Here, Plaintiff acknowledges that the stated location for production is improper, but asks the court to modify the subpoenas to include a proper location for production.4 This district is not a proper location to command production, to compel compliance, or to modify the subpoenas. Plaintiff’s defective subpoenas cannot confer jurisdiction on this court. Accordingly, the motions are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 21st day of November, 2016. BY THE COURT: PAUL M. WARNER United States Magistrate Judge 4 Docket no. 35 at 2. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.