UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
April 2, 2008
TADIRAN TELECOM, INC., PLAINTIFF,
SPRINT PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., AND SPRINT NORTH SUPPLY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lindsay, Magistrate Judge
Before the court is the plaintiff's letter motion dated March 26, 2008, seeking to quash subpoenas served by the defendants on three non-testifying consultants who worked with the plaintiff's marketing expert, Gary Katz. According to the plaintiff, the subpoenas should be quashed because they seek production of notes made by the consultants that are privileged. Defendants object by letter dated March 31, 2008.*fn1 Significantly, the subpoenas wereissued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 makes clear that a motion to quash a subpoena is properly made to the issuing court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3). Because the challenged subpoenas were not issued by this court, the court is without jurisdiction to determine the instant motion to quash. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3); Microbrightfield, Inc. v. Boehringer, 2006 WL 851825, at*1 (D. Vt. March 30, 2006) ("[T]he Court is without jurisdiction to consider the motions to quash" subpoenas issued from another District Court).
ARLENE ROSARIO LINDSAY United States Magistrate Judge