Porath et al v. Logitech Inc, No. 2:2020cv00450 - Document 8 (W.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff James Porath's 1 Motion to Compel. The court GRANTS Mr. Porath's counsel's request to transfer this motion to the federal district court in the Northern District of California p ursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f). Accordingly, the court DECLINES TO RULE on the remainder of Mr. Porath's counsel's motion. Finally, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to transfer this matter to the federal district court in the Northern Per LCR 3(i), this case will be transferred to the Northern District of California in 14 days from the date of this order. (PM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Court of any delay in response to the subpoenas.” (See id., Ex 4.) 18 Mr. Porath’s counsel issued subpoenas to nine (9) retailers in January 2020. (See 19 id., Exs. 5-6.) Seven of the nine retailers produced documents. (See id., Ex. 5 at 2.) 20 Amazon.com did not produce documents, but instead served objections in response to the 21 subpoena. (See id., Ex. 7.) Mr. Porath’s counsel filed this motion in the Western District 22 of Washington, where Amazon.com’s headquarters is located, asking the court to either ORDER - 3 Case 2:20-cv-00450-JLR Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 6 1 enforce the subpoena or to transfer enforcement of the subpoena to the Northern District 2 of California. (See generally Mot.) As noted above, Amazon.com opposes both requests, 3 but also asks, alternatively, that the court permit Amazon.com to send its own direct 4 email notice to its customers. (See generally Resp.) 5 The court first considers whether it should transfer this motion to the federal 6 district court in the North District of California. The court where compliance with a 7 subpoena is sought has discretion to transfer related motions to the issuing court “if the 8 court finds exceptional circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). As “the proponent of 9 transfer,” Mr. Porath’s counsel “bears the burden of showing that such circumstances are 10 present.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory committee’s note. “The prime concern should be 11 avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas . . . .” Id. However, transfer 12 may be “warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the 13 underlying litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the 14 motion. . . .” Id.; see also Moon Mountain Farms, LLC v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Co., 301 15 F.R.D. 426, 429 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“When the issuing court has already ruled on issues 16 presented by a subpoena-related motion, exceptional circumstances exist and the court of 17 compliance may transfer the motion to the issuing court.”). Whether “exceptional 18 circumstances” exist for a transfer turns on the particular facts of each case. Agincourt 19 Gaming, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-0708-RFB-NJK, 2014 WL 4079555, at *6 (D. 20 Nev. Aug. 15, 2014). Thus, on the one hand, the court considers the burden on the party 21 responding to the subpoena in the event of a transfer; on the other hand, the court 22 considers factors such as judicial economy, docket management, and the risk of ORDER - 4 Case 2:20-cv-00450-JLR Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 5 of 6 1 inconsistent rulings. See, e.g ., Moon Mountain, 2014 WL 3378011, *3-4. “Transfer is 2 appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with the 3 subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory 4 committee’s note. 5 Based on the foregoing precepts, the court concludes that it should transfer this 6 motion to the Northern District of California. Here, the subpoena to Amazon.com was a 7 part of a broader plan, directed and approved by the federal district court in the Northern 8 District of California, to provide notice to absent class members of the demise of the class 9 action, as well as a plan of distribution. (See Mot., Exs. 3-4.) As a part of their proposal 10 to the federal district court in the Northern District of California, Mr. Porath’s counsel 11 submitted an exemplar of the Amazon.com subpoena to that court. (See id., Ex. 3.) 12 Thus, the federal district court in the Northern District of California has already reviewed 13 the subpoena and provided its initial approval. (See id., Ex. 4.) Because the federal 14 district court has already ruled on issues related to the subpoena at issue “exceptional 15 circumstances” exist warranting transfer of this motion to the Northern District of 16 California. 17 Nevertheless, Amazon.com argues that it would be unfairly burdened by requiring 18 it to litigate this motion to compel in the Northern District of California 19 “[n]otwithstanding Amazon[.com]’s resources and [its counsel’s] presence in San 20 Francisco.” (See Resp. at 12.) The court is not convinced. In this case, the court 21 concludes that the interests of judicial economy, case management, and the risk of 22 ORDER - 5 Case 2:20-cv-00450-JLR Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 6 1 inconsistent rulings outweigh any burden Amazon.com suffers by litigating this issue in 2 the Northern District of California. 3 Because the court grants Mr. Porath’s counsel’s request to transfer this motion to 4 the Northern District of California, it does not consider whether to compel Amazon.com 5 to comply with the subpoena. Instead, the court reserves this issue for the federal district 6 court in the Northern District of California. 7 8 III. CONCLUSION The court GRANTS in part and DECLINES TO RULE in part on Mr. Porath’s 9 counsel’s motion (Dkt. # 1). The court GRANTS Mr. Porath’s counsel’s request to 10 transfer this motion to the federal district court in the Northern District of California 11 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f). Accordingly, the court DECLINES 12 TO RULE on the remainder of Mr. Porath’s counsel’s motion. Finally, the court 13 DIRECTS the Clerk to transfer this matter to the federal district court in the Northern 14 District of California and to close this file. 15 Dated this 12th day of May, 2020. 16 17 A 18 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 6
]]>
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.
