Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-32

Filing 38

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 34 Defendant Doe 10's Motion to Quash Subpoena, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/6/2012. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01642-CMA-MEH
PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES 1-32,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 6, 2012.
Defendant Doe 10's Motion to Quash Subpoena [filed September 4, 2012; docket #34] is
denied without prejudice. The challenged subpoena appears to be issued from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey. See docket #34-1 at 1. To the extent the present motion seeks
to quash or modify a subpoena issued through any district other than the District of Colorado, this
Court must deny such request without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3)(A), only “the issuing
court” may quash or modify a subpoena (emphasis added). See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 141 F.3d
337, 341 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (only the issuing court has the power to act on its subpoenas); In re
Digital Equipment Corp., 949 F.2d 228, 231 (8th Cir. 1991) (court in district where underlying
action was pending did not have jurisdiction to rule on objections to deposition subpoenas obtained
in another district). “Subpoenas are process of the issuing court, and nothing in the rules even hints
that any other court may be given the power to quash or enforce them.” In re Sealed Case, 141 F.3d
at 341 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the court where the action is pending lacks jurisdiction to
rule on subpoenas issued from other courts, unless there is a transfer or remittance of the matter from
the issuing court. See In re Digital Equipment Corp., 949 F.2d at 231.