Malibu Media v. John Does 1-42
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 16 Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously, and denying without prejudice 17 Defendant J. Doe No. 22's Omnibus Motion to: (1) Sever Defendants for Improper Joinder, (2) Emergency Stay the Proceedings Based on Resolution of Misjoinder Issue, (3) to Quash the Subpoena, or in the Alternative, (4) for Protective Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/17/2012. (mehcd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH
PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,
JOHN DOES 1-42,
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 17, 2012.
Pending before the Court are a Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously [filed September
13, 2012; docket #16] and Defendant J. Doe No. 22's Omnibus Motion to: (1) Sever Defendants for
Improper Joinder, (2) Emergency Stay the Proceedings Based on Resolution of Misjoinder Issue,
(3) to Quash the Subpoena, or in the Alternative, (4) for Protective Order [filed September 13, 2012;
docket #17]. Both motions are denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11(a), which states in pertinent part,
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one
attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a party personally if the party is
unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, email address, and
The Court acknowledges Defendant’s request to proceed anonymously, as revealing his identity may
effectively moot a motion to quash. At the same time, the logistics of litigation necessitate that a
movant disclose his contact information to the Court. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 10.1K. Therefore, if
Defendant wishes to re-file his motion in accordance with this order and all applicable local and
federal court rules, he must first (or contemporaneously) file a motion to proceed anonymously and
provide to the Court his name, address, telephone number and email address in accordance with Rule
11(a) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 10.1K. If Defendant wishes to keep his identifying information
confidential, Defendant may file his Signature Block separately, and may request that the document
be maintained under Restriction Level 2 pursuant to the procedure set forth in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.2.
In addition, the Court observes two other deficiencies with Defendant’s Omnibus Motion.
First, to the extent the 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). In this case, Defendant has failed to provide
the Court with a copy of the subpoena; thus, the Court cannot determine whether it is authorized to
rule on Defendant’s motion to quash at this time.
With respect to the remainder of the Motion, due to its varied requests for relief, adjudication
of the Motion would likely require different standards of review and legal analyses of both
dispositive and non-dispositive issues. In the interests of judicial efficiency and the proper
management of its docket, the Court instructs the Defendant to file his remaining requests for relief
each in separate motions, as applicable. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1C (“A motion shall be made in
a separate paper.”)
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?