Malibu Media v. John Does 1-42

Filing 54

MINUTE ORDER. Motion to Quash 47 is denied without prejudice. Continued Request to Proceed Anonymously 45 is granted as set forth in this Minute Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this minute order to Doe #22 at the address provided in docket #35 by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/24/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN BATZ,
JOHN DOES 1-2, 4-13, and15-42,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on October 24, 2012.
Before this Court are Defendant Doe #22's Motion to Quash [filed October 22, 2012; docket
#47] and Doe #22's Continued Request to Proceed Anonymously [filed October 22, 2012; docket
#45]. Doe #22 has also filed a Motion to Sever and Dismiss [docket #49], which remains pending
before Chief Judge Daniel.
First, with respect to Doe #22's Motion to Quash [filed October 22, 2012; docket #47], the
challenged subpoena appears to be issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Thus, 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.
To the extent Doe #22 believes his motion seeks protective relief other than that which would
have the effect of quashing or modifying the subpoena issued from the District of New Jersey, the
Court may entertain such motion in accordance with the standards set forth in Rajala v. McGuire
Woods, LLP, No. 08-2638-CM-DJW, 2010 WL 4683979, at *6-7 (D. Kan. Nov. 12, 2010), and the
Defendant may file such motion on or before November 9, 2012.

Turning to Doe #22's Continued Request to Proceed Anonymously [filed October 22, 2012;
docket #45], the Court finds good cause to grant the motion as follows. Doe #22 may continue
proceeding anonymously during the pendency of his Motion to Sever and for purposes of refiling
a motion for protective order in accordance with the deadline prescribed above. Following the
resolution of the aforementioned motions, Doe #22 must request additional permission to continue
proceeding anonymously.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this minute order to Doe #22 at the
address provided in docket #35. However, the minute order itself shall not be restricted.

2