The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS, et Case No. 24-mc-80144-LJC
al.,
8
Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
9 DENYING IN PART STIPULATION TO
v. TRANSFER CASE AND MODIFY
10 BRIEFING SCHEDULE
VANTAGESCORE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
11 Re: Dkt. No. 3
Defendant.
12
13 The parties to this miscellaneous case arising from a motion to enforce a subpoena issued
14 under the authority of the Northern District of Illinois have stipulated to transfer their dispute to
15 the that district, where the underlying civil action is pending. The Federal Rules of Civil
16 Procedure allow a court to “transfer a motion under [Rule 45] to the issuing court if the person
17 subject to the subpoena consents”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Under most if not all circumstances,
18 consent by the party subject to a subpoena is sufficient to warrant transfer even if the issuing party
19 objects, because the rule requiring a motion to be brought in the district where compliance would
20 occur (rather than in the issuing court overseeing the underlying litigation) is intended to protect
21 the party subject to the subpoena. See, e.g., Dr. Muhammad Mirza & Allied Medical &
22 Diagnostic Servs., LLC v. Yelp, Inc., No. 21-mc-80077-TSH, 2021 WL 2939922, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
23 July 13, 2021); Youtoo Techs., LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 17-mc-80006-JSC, 2017 WL 431751, at
24 *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2017); see also San Juan Cable LLC v. DISH Network LLC, No. CV 14-mc-
25 00261-RM-MJW, 2015 WL 500631 (D. Colo. Jan. 23, 2015) (“It is enough to note that the
26 requested transfer does not appear to be frivolous or made in bad faith.”).
27 Here, the issuing and receiving parties all consent to transfer. In light of that consent, the
1 bad faith, the stipulation to transfer is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to transfer this case to
2 || the Northern District of Ilinois.
3 The parties have also stipulated to modify the briefing schedule and page limits applicable
4 || to the motion to compel compliance. Such requests are better addressed to the court that will
5 resolve that motion. Those portions of the stipulation are therefore DENIED, without prejudice to
6 || the parties renewing their requests after the case has been transferred.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated: June 14, 2024
9
10 as, | wry
‘A J. CISNEROS
ited States Magistrate Judge
12
13
15
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28