SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. TCA FUND MANAGEMENT GROUP CORP., et al., Defendants CASE NO. 20-21964-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman United States District Court, S.D. Florida Entered on FLSD Docket June 10, 2021 Counsel Stephanie N. Moot, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Miami, FL, Jason Kenneth Kellogg, Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider & Grossman, Miami, FL, Andrew O. Schiff, Alabama Securities Commission, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff. Craig Vincent Rasile, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Miami, FL, Gregg Alan Steinman, Shraiberg, Ferrara, Landau and Page, Boca Raton, FL, for Defendant Provost International, Inc. Martha Rosa Mora, Avila Rodriguez Hernandez Mena & Ferri, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendant Ocean Bank. Altonaga, Cecilia M., United States District Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL *1 THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Receiver Jonathan E. Perlman, Esq.’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents [ECF No. 148] from nonparty, Brandeis University Inc., filed on June 9, 2021. The Motion seeks to enforce a Subpoena, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion [ECF No. 148-1]. The Subpoena was served on Brandeis University's registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation System, in Plantation, Florida and required Brandeis University to produce responsive information at Receiver's counsel's office in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. (See Subpoena 1). The Receiver advises he has made numerous good faith attempts to contact Brandeis University through its registered agent, but Brandeis University has not produced the required documents. (See Mot. 2–3). “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs issuance of subpoenas to nonparties.” Webb v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, No. 1:19-cv-01716, 2021 WL 1931507, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2021) (citation omitted). “Rule 45 consistently, through numerous sections of the Rule, requires any motions or applications related to a subpoena be brought in the district where compliance is required.” In re Outlaw Lab'ys, LP Litig., No. 18-cv-840, 2020 WL 5709386, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2020) (citations omitted). The issuing court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a subpoena if compliance will occur in another district. See Webb, 2021 WL 1931507, at *1 (collecting cases). Although the Subpoena requires production in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Rule 45 mandates that the place of compliance for the “production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things [be] at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A). Thus, the district of compliance for a nonparty corporation is typically where the corporation is headquartered. See, e.g., Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., No. 12-24356-civ, 2015 WL 1722481, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2015) (holding district of compliance for Rule 45 subpoena is where nonparty corporation was headquartered); Europlay Capital Advisors, LLC v. Does, 323 F.R.D. 628, 629–30 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (“[T]he proper district to hear a motion to compel is where [the nonparty defendant] is headquartered.” (alterations added; collecting cases)). While Brandeis University has a registered agent in Plantation, Florida, it does not appear Brandeis University is headquartered there. (See Subpoena 6 (indentifying addresses in Waltham, Massachusetts)). The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the Receiver's Motion and denies it without prejudice to it being refiled in the appropriate district. Accordingly it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Receiver's Motion to Compel Production of Documents [ECF No. 148] from nonparty, Brandeis University Inc., is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 10th day of June, 2021.