Legal Opinion
VISX, Inc. v. Nidek Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided June 27, 2002No. Nos. C98-4842CRB(BZ), C000870CRB(BZ), C00-0869CRB(BZ), C000871CRB(BZ)PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE DOCUMENT SUBPOENAS
ZIMMERMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is VISX’s motion to enforce document subpoenas issued to at least 16 third parties. Relying on Fed.R.Civ.P. 45, Nidek asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the subpoenas, because they were issued by courts outside the Northern District of California.
Under Rule 45, the only procedure for enforcing a subpoena duces tecum is to institute contempt proceedings before the district court that issued the subpoena. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e); Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Rutter…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re Sunrise Securities LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1989
- In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Products LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1997
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- United States Ex Rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc., Hca, Inc. And West Paces Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- In Re Welding Rod Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2005
- In re Clients & Former Clients of Baron & Budd, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007
- In Re: Asbestos ProdCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.