Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-31
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 30 Motion to Quash the Comcast Subpoena Against John Doe #11, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/15/2012. (mehcd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02069-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
JOHN DOES 1-31,
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on October 15, 2012.
The Motion to Quash the Comcast Subpoena Against John Doe #11 [filed October 12, 2012;
docket #30] is denied without prejudice.
Doe #11's Motion claims that Comcast “was served with a subpoena issued from this Court
and served in New Jersey.” See docket #30 at 1. However, in light of the Court’s experience in
similar cases and the Court’s understanding that a subpoena must be issued “from the from the court
of the district where the production or inspection is to be made,” the Court is skeptical that the
subpoena was issued from the District of Colorado but served on Comcast in New Jersey with the
purpose of compelling production in that state. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(A)(2)(c). 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. In the absence of the underlying subpoena, which Doe #11 has not provided, the Court cannot
reach the merits of Doe #11's Motion to Quash at this time.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this minute order to the address provided
by Doe #11 in docket #11, but not to reveal or disclose the name and address, which will remain
confidential until further order of the Court.
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?