Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-22

Filing 103

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice the following motions filed by Defendant Doe #19: 77 Motion for Protective Order, 78 Motion to Quash, and 79 Motion to Sever and Dismiss. Doe 19 may re-file the motions in accordance with this order and all applicable rules on or before 12/10/2012. The Court may strike any motion or other filing that deviates from the requirements of this order or from those set forth in the applicable local or federal rules. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/29/2012. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02598-REB-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES 1-22,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 29, 2012.
Before the Court are Defendant Doe 19's Motion for Protective Order [filed November 21,
2012; docket #77], Motion to Quash [filed November 21 2012; docket #78] and Motion to Sever and
Dismiss [filed November 21, 2012; docket #79].
Section IV.B.1 of Judge Blackburn’s Practice Standards provides that “except for summary
judgment motions, all other motions (including objections to the recommendations or orders of
United States Magistrate Judges), responses, and concomitant briefs shall not exceed fifteen (15)
pages.” (emphasis in original). The aforementioned motions are each 18 pages or longer. See
dockets ##77, 78, 79. Therefore, pursuant to Section IV.C.1 of Judge Blackburn’s Practice
Standards, the motions are denied without prejudice for failure to comply.
Further, the Court once again warns Doe 19 that “ghost writing” and/or other assistance in
court proceedings by an attorney for a pro se party are prohibited. The Court must construe a pro
se party’s “pleadings liberally, applying a less stringent standard than is applicable to pleadings filed
by lawyers.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotations and
citations omitted). For this and other reasons set forth in the Court’s previous order, ghost writing
is improper.
Moreover, the Court notes that Doe 19 failed to file a copy of the challenged subpoena with
his motion to quash for the Court’s consideration. Should Doe 19 choose to re-file his motion to
quash in accordance with this order and all applicable rules, the Court orders that Doe 19 attach a
copy of the challenged subpoena to the motion.
Doe 19 may re-file the motions in accordance with this order and all applicable rules on or
before December 10, 2012. Again, the Court may strike any motion or other filing that deviates
from the requirements of this order or from those set forth in the applicable local or federal rules.
Finally, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to mail a copy of this order to the address

provided by Doe 19 in the filing at docket #93, without publicly disclosing the information provided
therein.

2