Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-31

Filing 66

MINUTE ORDER denying the following motions: 32 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant John Doe #4's Motion to Quash the Plaintiff's Subpoena and 41 Defendant John Doe #4's Motion to Quash. Doe 4 may re-file a single motion to quash in compliance with all federal and local rules, as well as Judge Daniel's Practice Standards, no later than 4/11/2013. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/3/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02069-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE 4,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 3, 2013.
Pending before the Court are a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Defendant John Doe #4's Motion to Quash the Plaintiff’s Subpoena [filed October 12, 2013; docket
#32] and a Motion to Quash [filed October 29, 2012; docket #41] filed by Defendant John Doe #4
(hereinafter “Doe 4”). Both are denied without prejudice and stricken for several reasons.
First, with respect to Doe 4's request to quash, the challenged subpoena appears to be issued
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. See dockets ## 32 at 19, 41-1. To the
extent the present motions seek 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 addition, Doe 4 has not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(D) and D.C. Colo. LCivR
5.1G with respect to the second motion to quash. Rule 5(a)(1)(D) requires that a written motion
filed with the Court must be served on every party. Local Rule 5.1G requires, in pertinent part, that
“[e]ach paper, other than one filed ex parte, shall be accompanied by a certificate of service
indicating the date it was served, the name and address of the person to whom it was sent, and the
manner of service.” Doe 4's second motion contains no such certificate, nor any other indication of

service on Plaintiff.
Finally, both motions exceed the page limitations set forth in Section II.E.1 of Judge Daniel’s
Practice Standards. Doe 4 has neither requested nor received leave to file excess pages.
Doe 4 may re-file a single motion to quash in compliance with all federal and local rules, as
well as Judge Daniel’s Practice Standards, no later than April 11, 2013.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Minute Order to Doe 4 at the address
listed in docket #28. The Certificate of Service filed on the public docket shall not list the address
of Doe 4.

2