Warshawsky v. Phoenix, City of

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Justin Harry Warshawsky, No. CV-25-00104-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 City of Phoenix, et al., 13 Defendant. [14] 15 Plaintiff Justin Harry Warshawsky requests the court issue a subpoena for a non16 party located in Texas to appear at a deposition. (Doc. 54.) The proposed subpoena 17 identifies the place of compliance as a “virtual appearance” and includes a link to virtual 18 meeting. (Doc. 54 at 3.) “Under Rule 45 . . . the place of compliance must be a physical 19 ‘place’ subject to ‘geographical limits’ and capable of being measured according to 20 mileage.” CSS, Inc. v. Herrington, 354 F. Supp. 3d 702, 709 (N.D. Tex. 2017). See also In 21 re Kirkland, 75 F.4th 1030 , 1042-46 (9th Cir. 2023). The motion for issuance is denied. 22 On September 12, 2025, Warshawsky sent an email to the chambers inbox 23 indicating the parties had agreed the non-party should be subpoenaed. Defendant then 24 emailed stating there was no agreement between the parties. The parties then exchanged 25 additional emails, copying the court on each. The chambers inbox is for the parties to 26 provide proposed orders. It cannot be used to convey substantive information, such as that 27 all parties agreed to a particular motion. All such information must be filed on the docket. 28 Future improper communications may result in the imposition of sanctions. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Issuance (Doc. 54) is DENIED. 3 Dated this 12th day of September, 2025. [4] UU ia M. VBRA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 7 United States District Judge [28] _2-