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

Filing 39

AMENDED ORDER DENYING re 26 MOTION to Quash filed by John Doe (IP 68.99.178.9). Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 11/21/2011. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2011)

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 68.99.178.9, 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