Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-53

Filing 39

AMENDED ORDER DENYING re 26 MOTION to Quash filed by John Doe (IP Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 11/21/2011. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, Plaintiffs, 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 No. 3:11-CV-02330 EDL AMENDED ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Docket # 26) v. DOES 1-53, Defendants. / 13 14 Plaintiff Hard Drive Productions, which produces, markets and distributes adult 15 entertainment products, has filed a lawsuit against 53 Doe defendants alleging copyright 16 infringement. On August 3, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Revised Ex Parte Application to 17 Take Expedited Discovery. On October 14, 2011, Doe defendant (“Movant”), associated with 18 Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, filed this Motion to Quash an outstanding subpoena 19 issued to Movant’s Internet Service provider (“ISP”), Cox Communications. In response to the 20 Court’s Order filed November 16, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a declaration attaching a copy of the 21 subpoena at issue. That subpoena, dated August 5, 2011, was issued to Cox Communications out of 22 the Northern District of Georgia. Doc. no. 36, Ex. A. 23 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3), a court has no authority to quash a 24 subpoena that was issued by a court in another district. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A); SEC v. 25 CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17833, *7-8 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2011) (“On the basis 26 of the clear language of Rule 45, we must hold that the court that issued the subpoena, and not the 27 court where the underlying action is pending, can entertain a motion to quash or modify a 28 subpoena”) (emphasis added). Here, the Northern District of Georgia issued the subpoena at issue in 1 this Motion. See Doc. no. 36, Ex. A. Because Movant failed to bring the Motion before the court 2 that issued the subpoena, this Court lacks the authority to quash the subpoena. Thus, Movant’s 3 Motion to Quash is denied without prejudice. 4 5 6 Dated: November 21, 2011 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.

Why Is My Information Online?