In re subpoenas to Maxlinear, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE subpoenas to MAXLINEAR, INC., Case No.: 3:21-cv-1556-CAB-AGS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

ENFORCE SUBPOENAS (ECF 1),

VACATING HEARING, AND

CLOSING THE CASE

7 The party serving a subpoena may move to compel production in the court for the 8 “district where compliance is required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). The question here 9 is: Which federal district is that? 10 Plaintiff TQ Delta, LLC, served a subpoena requiring nonparty MaxLinear, Inc., to 11 produce documents and sit for a deposition in Irvine, California, which is in the Central 12 District of California. (See ECF 1-3, at 2.) But TQ Delta moved to enforce that subpoena 13 here, in the Southern District of California. The district of compliance “is determined by 14 the location or ‘place’ for compliance identified on the subpoena.” CSS, Inc. v. Herrington, 15 354 F. Supp. 3d 702, 709 (N.D. Tex. 2017). Because the subpoena’s listed “place” is in the 16 Central District, this Court seems to lack authority to consider TQ Delta’s…