DENTAL RESOURCE SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a LARGE PRACTICE SALES, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL B. ASHCRAFT and MICHAEL ASHCRAFT, DDS, MA, PA, Defendants No. 3:20-cv-2085-BN United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division Signed March 11, 2021 Counsel James W. Rusher, Heath E. Hardcastle, Albright Rusher & Hardcastle, Tulsa, OK, Travis Daxon Richard, Law Offices of Travis Daxon Howard Richard, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff. Michael Robert Steinmark, Steckler Wayne Cochran Cherry, PLLC, Vincent Rene Carrizales, II, Law Office of Vincent Carrizales, Dallas, TX, for Defendants. Horan, David L., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH *1 Defendants Michael B. Ashcraft and Michael Ashcraft, DDS, MA, PA have filed a Motion to Quash or Alternatively for a Protective Order, see Dkt. No. 46 (the “motion to quash”), and Plaintiff Dental Resource Group d/b/a Large Practice Sales has filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Quash, see Dkt. No. 47 (the “motion to strike”). The motion to quash does not comply with the requirements of the Court's Standing Order on Discovery and Other Non-Dispositive Motions [Dkt. No. 37], which governs the filing and disposition of all discovery-related motions in this case. The Standing Order on Discovery and Other Non-Dispositive Motions mandates that the contested motion to quash be accompanied by a joint status report signed by counsel for any affected party and by any unrepresented party after they have discussed the subject matter of the dispute in a face-to-face meeting or a telephone conference. The Court's Standing Order requires counsel for all affected represented parties to participate in the mandated pre-filing meeting or conference. See id. at 3. The Standing Order further explains: “The Court intends the joint status report to enable the Court to determine each party's respective positions regarding the subject matter of a pretrial dispute in a single written submission. To this end, the parties should present in the body of the report all arguments and authorities on which each party relies. The parties must submit any supporting evidence and affidavits in a separate appendix.” See id. at 8. The motion to quash was filed without the required joint status report. The motion to quash also was filed in the wrong court. Defendants seek an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d) to quash a subpoena that commands production by non-party James A. Burch, C.P.A., P.A. in Little Rock, Arkansas. See Dkt. No. 46. “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d), [e]ither in lieu of or in addition to serving objections on the party seeking discovery, a person can ‘timely’ file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A).” MetroPCS v. Thomas, 327 F.R.D. 600, 607 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Rule 45(d)(3)(A), “[o]n timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(3)(A). A Rule 45 subpoena may command “production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(b)(2), (c)(2)(A). “[F]or purposes of a Rule 45(d)(2) or 45(d)(3) motion, the court or district ‘where compliance is required’ is determined by the location or ‘place’ for compliance identified on the subpoena as required by [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 45(a)(1)(A)(iii).” CSS, Inc. v. Herrington, 354 F. Supp. 3d 702, 709 (N.D. Tex. 2017). While the Advisory Committee Notes to the 2013 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) explain that, [u]nder Rules 45(d)(2)(B), 45(d)(3), and 45(e)(2)(B), subpoena-related motions and applications are to be made to the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c), FED. R. CIV. P. 45(f), advisory committee notes (2013 amendments), that commentary is entitled to weight but is not binding, see Mir v. L-3 Commns Integrated Sys., L.P., 319 F.R.D. 220, 229 (N.D. Tex. 2016). As this Court has previously explained at greater length, Defendants' preferred “approach requires a district court in which a Rule 45(d)(3) motion to quash or a Rule 45(d)(2) motion to compel is filed to first resolve a substantive geographical limits issue under Rules 45(c) simply to decide if it is the court with authority to decide a Rule 45(d)(2) or 45(d)(3) motion -- including a Rule 45(d)(3)(ii) motion to quash for violating Rule 45(c) -- in the first place. Put another way, a subpoena's listing a place of compliance that violates Rule 45(c)'s requirements is a ground for quashing or modifying the subpoena. But, consistent with this Court's understanding of how to determine the court or district ‘where compliance is required,’ a court in the district encompassing that improper place of compliance can properly make that ruling on a Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(ii) motion as the court for the district where compliance is -- whether properly or not -- required on the face of the subpoena, and does so consistent with Rule 45's text and structure as well as the practical realities that courts presented with subpoena-related motions and applications face. After all, while, ‘[a]lthough Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iii) permits the subpoena to direct a place of compliance, that place must be selected under Rule 45(c),’ FED. R. CIV. P. 45(f), advisory committee notes (2013 amendments), the place of compliance is the one directed by the subpoena unless and until a court rules otherwise on a motion under Rule 45(d). At the time of deciding where such a motion must be filed, then, the place named in the subpoena as required by Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iii) is the place ‘where compliance is required.’ This is so even if the subpoenaed non-party has objected based on Rule 45(c) to a subpoena's named place of compliance, because the determination that the subpoenaed non-party and not the subpoenaing party has the better of a Rule 45(c) dispute must await decision on a Rule 45(d)(2) or 45(d)(3) motion.” CSS, 354 F. Supp. 3d at 709-10 (citation omitted); accord Merchant Consulting Group, Inc. v. Beckpat, LLC, Civ. A. No. 17-11405-PBS, 2018 WL 4510269 (D. Mass. July 11, 2018). Because the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas is not the court for the district where compliance is required as to the subpoena at issue, this Court has no basis or authority to address the subpoenas under Rule 45(d)(3) or to transfer Defendants' Rule 45(d)(3) motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f). See Paso Del Norte Motors, LP v. Kia Motors of Am., Inc., No. 3:15-cv-2672-M, 2015 WL 4939948, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2015); SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., No. 3:14-mc-79-D-BN, 2014 WL 2519242, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 3, 2014). *2 The Court therefore DENIES Defendants' Motion to Quash or Alternatively for a Protective Order [Dkt. No. 46] without prejudice to Defendants' refiling in the court for the district where compliance is required as to the subpoena. The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion to strike. See Dkt. No. 47. The Court grants the motion to strike to the extent it denies the motion to quash and otherwise denies the motion to strike. SO ORDERED.