Kamal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 || Youssif KAMAL, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-1298-BAS-AGS Plaintiffs,| ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH (ECF No. 44) |} EDEN CREAMERY, LLC, et al., Defendants. 15 Defendants move to quash twelve subpoenas that plaintiffs have served on third 17 || parties. (ECF No. 44-1, at 4.) But only “the issuing court, and not the court where the |/underlying action is pending, has the authority to consider motions to quash or modify subpoenas under [Rule 45].” S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829, 832 (9th Cir. ||2011). None of these subpoenas were issued in the Southern District of California. (See No. 44-5, at 3.) Because this district is not “the district where compliance is required,” Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on defendants’ motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Thus, defendants’ motion is DENIED without …