Basic Solutions Ltd. Co. v. Gonzalez Vega et al
| Basic Solutions Ltd. Co. |
| Juan M Gonzalez Vega doing business as GMA Trading, GMA Trading Corp. and Pictum Ltd. Co. |
| 4:2025mc00504 |
| March 21, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Kenneth M Hoyt |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 9, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 REPLY in Support of #1 , filed by GMA Trading Corp., Juan M Gonzalez Vega. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A) (Carroll, Christina) |
| Filing 6 SEALED EXHIBITS Exhibit A - Confidential Correspondence re: #5 Response in Opposition to Motion by Pictum Ltd. Co., filed. (Gonzalez, Javier) |
| Filing 5 RESPONSE in Opposition to #1 , filed by Pictum Ltd. Co.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A *Filed Under Seal*, #2 Proposed Order) (Gonzalez, Javier) |
| Filing 4 Case transferred in from Texas Northern. Case Number 3:25-mc-00011; certified copy of transfer order, certified docket sheet, and transfer letter received |
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC ORDER TRANSFERRING MOTION UNDER RULE 45(f): Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs GMA Trading Corp. and Juan Manuel Gonzalez Vega d/b/a GMA Trading have filed a Motion to Compel Third-Party Discovery from Pictum Ltd. Co. under a subpoena issued in connection with underlying litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas captioned Basic Solutions Ltd. Co. v. Gonzalez Vega et al., No. 4:23-cv-04824 (S.D. Tex.).Defendants properly filed their Rule 45(d) motion to compel compliance with the subpoena here in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d), is the court in the district where compliance with the Subpoena is required in Dallas, Texas. See Dkt. No. 1-4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d); accord Schnelle v. Swift Tech. Servs. LLC, No. CV 4:21-MC-02466, 2022 WL 705873, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2022); CSS, Inc. v. Herrington, 354 F. Supp. 3d 702 (N.D. Tex. 2017).But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) provides that, "[w]hen the court where compliance is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Here, the issuing court is the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas."Rule 45(f) does not require that a motion to transfer be filed, and the Court may sua sponte order transfer where appropriate." Orix USA Corp. v. Armentrout, No. 3:16-mc-63-N-BN, 2016 WL 3926507, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 21, 2016). But, if the person subject to the subpoena does not consent to transfer, the Court may only transfer a Rule 45 motion to the issuing court if exceptional circumstances exist. See id.A review of the docket in the underlying litigation in the Southern District of Texas reveals that these same movants have, through the same counsel, filed in the underlying matter in the Southern District of Texas essentially the same motion to compel compliance with essentially the same subpoena served on another non-party. See Basic Solutions Ltd. Co. v. Gonzalez Vega et al., No. 4:23-cv-04824, Dkt. No. 155 (S.D. Tex.). That motion is now pending before the presiding judge in issuing court in the underlying litigation. And a review of the motion filed here and its supporting papers makes clear that the same attorneys represent -- and filed objections (which are the subject of both motions) on behalf of -- both of the third parties that are the subjects of these subpoenas."The Advisory Committee Notes provide the following guidance as to when transfer of a subpoena-related motion is appropriate: The prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions. In some circumstances, however, transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court's management of the underlying litigation.... Transfer is appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f), advisory committee notes (2013 amendments). In determining whether 'exceptional circumstances' exist, courts consider several factors, including the complexity, procedural posture, duration of pendency, and the nature of the issues pending before, or already resolved by, the issuing court in the underlying litigation." Id. (cleaned up). And "[n]othing in the Advisory Committee Note, or subsequent case law, precludes this Court from relying on other aspects of case management, such as impending discovery deadlines and case-specific issues, to transfer a subpoena-related motion." Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 309 F.R.D. 41, 43 (D.D.C. 2015).While the Court understands that it should not assume that the issuing court is in a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions, the same issues are now presented in at least this district and the issuing court, and the interests in judicial efficiency and avoiding inconsistent rulings weigh in favor of transfer. The Court is presented here with exceptional circumstances in which the interests in having the issuing court resolve the issues presented by the pending subpoena-related motion as to Pictum, along with the mirror-image motion as to Tastea Holdings Ltd. Co., outweigh whatever interest that Pictum may have in obtaining local resolution of this motion (which it did not file) in this Court. The Court ORDERS that Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs GMA Trading Corp. and Juan Manuel Gonzalez Vega d/b/a GMA Trading's Motion to Compel Third-Party Discovery from Pictum Ltd. Co. [Dkt. No. 1] is immediately transferred and remitted to the United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f), for determination in connection with the underlying litigation, Basic Solutions Ltd. Co. v. Gonzalez Vega et al., No. 4:23-cv-04824 (S.D. Tex.).The Court directs the Clerk of Court to close Case No. 3:25-mc-11-K-BN (N.D. Tex.) after the transfer of the motion.(Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 3/18/2025.)
|
|
Filing 2
ELECTRONIC ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/12/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 1 Motion to Compel (compliance with a subpoena) filed by GMA Trading Corp., Juan M Gonzalez Vega. (Filing Fee $52.00, Receipt Number ATXNDC-15331547) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Appendix, #2 Declaration(s) Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit(s) Exhibits 1-A through 1-D Under seal, #4 Exhibit(s) Exhibits 1-E through 1-H) (Carroll, Christina) Modified to add payment information on 3/12/2025 (cea). |
| New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Case preliminarily assigned to Judge Horan for items that may be referred. (ndt) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
