HOWARD LLOYD, Magistrate Judge
The instant lawsuit arises out of efforts by defendants (collectively "Carnes") to enforce a judgment awarded to them in a related action, Carnes v. Zamani, C00-20084 RMW. Presently before the court is non-party J.D. Sullivan's "Emergency Motion to Shorten Time and Quash Subpoena Issued From Wrong Court." Sullivan is identified as plaintiffs' former counsel in the C00-20084 RMW action. He evidently is located in Minden, Nevada. He says that, on May 13, 2008, plaintiff Michael Zamani served him with a subpoena for a May 20, 2008 deposition and document production to occur in Reno, Nevada. Zamani had the subpoena issue from this court. Sullivan argues that the subpoena is void because it should have issued from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Based on the record presented, this court finds that no hearing or any further briefing is necessary. For the reasons stated below, the motion to quash will be granted.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a non-party travel no more than 100 miles from his residence or place of business in responding to a discovery subpoena. See FED.R.CIV.P. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). Additionally, a subpoena for attendance at a deposition or for the production of documents must issue from the district court where the deposition or production will take place. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(2)(B), (C). A subpoena that designates the wrong issuing court is void. See Kupritz v. Savannah College of Art Design, 155 F.R.D. 84, 88 (E.D. Pa. 1994). Here, the record presented indicates that Sullivan is located in Nevada, and the subpoena in question seeks a deposition and document production there. It therefore appears that plaintiff sought a subpoena from the wrong court. Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se here, he is nonetheless obliged to adhere to rules that all litigants are required to follow. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding that pro per litigants must follow the same procedural rules as represented parties). Accordingly, the motion to quash is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.