Paramount Pictures Corporation et al v. Doe
ORDER re 1 Denying Request for Civil Subpoena Without Prejudice to Plaintiffs Filing a Renewed Request along with a Proper Subpoena. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 2/12/09. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 2/12/2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge OR D E R, page 1 PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) JOHN DOE, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No.: C 09-80015 JW (PVT) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CIVIL SUBPOENA WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFFS FILING A RENEWED REQUEST ALONG WITH A PROPER SUBPOENA
On February 9, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Request to Issue Civil Subpoena Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(h). Based on the request and declaration submitted, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiffs submitting a renewed request along with a proper subpoena. The proposed subpoena submitted by Plaintiffs improperly calls for a company in this district to produce documents in a different district. The proposed subpoena is also signed by Plaintiffs' counsel. Section 512(h) provides that, if a request is properly supported and the subpoena is in proper form, the "the clerk shall expeditiously issue and sign the proposed subpoena." See 17 U.S.C. § 512(h)(4) (emphasis added). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a renewed request along with a subpoena in proper form. Dated: 2/12/09
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?