Kamal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Youssif KAMAL, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-1298-BAS-AGS Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

v. PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 48) EDEN CREAMERY, LLC, et al., AND SETTING MOTION HEARING Defendants. 15 Defendants move for a protective order regarding 95 subpoenas that plaintiffs have served on third parties. (ECF No. 48-1, at 1.) Defendants ask the Court to “order[] plaintiffs to withdraw the Subpoenas . . . .” (Id. at 2.) 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). Only one of these subpoenas, served on Bon Suisse, Inc., was issued in the Southern District of California. (See ECF No. 48-5, at 1; ECF No. 48-7, at 1-2; ECF No. 48-9, at 1-5.) Because this district is not “the district where compliance is required,” this Court…