Zambezia Film (Pty,) Ltd. v. Does 1-31

Filing 25

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 23 Defendant "John Doe's" Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/23/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00378-WYD-MEH
ZAMBEZIA FILM (PTY.), LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-31,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 23, 2013.
Defendant “John Doe’s” Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena [filed May 22, 2013; docket
#23] is denied without prejudice for the following reasons.
First, the motion fails 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
telephone number.
From the content of the present motion, the Court infers that John Doe (who does not identify
him/herself by number) seeks to proceed in this litigation anonymously. However, he has failed to
properly seek permission from the Court to do so.1 See K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-29, 826 F. Supp.
2d 903, 905 (W.D.N.C. 2011) (noting that a party who wishes to proceed anonymously may
overcome the presumption against anonymous proceedings by filing a well-reasoned motion to
proceed anonymously); see also West Coast Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-5829, 275 F.R.D. 9, 12 (D.D.C.
2011) (“federal courts generally allow parties to proceed anonymously only under certain special
circumstances when anonymity is necessary to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or
personal embarrassment”). Therefore, if John Doe wishes to re-file the motion to quash in
accordance with this order and all applicable local and federal court rules, John Doe may do so on
or before June 6, 2013 and must first (or contemporaneously) file a separate motion to proceed
anonymously in accordance with Rule 11(a). With such filing, John Doe must provide to the Court

1

Although Defendant requests permission to file the motion “without revealing [his]
personally identifying information,” such unsupported request fails to comply with D.C. Colo.
LCivR 7.1C (“a motion ... shall be supported by a recitation of legal authority incorporated into the
motion”) and the law cited herein.

his name, address, telephone number and email address in the form of a separate written
“supplement” to the motion.2 If John Doe wishes to keep this supplement (containing his identifying
information) confidential, he may file a motion to file the supplement under restriction pursuant to
the procedure set forth in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.2.
Second, John Doe failed to attach a copy of the challenged subpoena to the present motion
for the Court’s consideration. 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). It is
unclear from the present record whether this Court is authorized to quash the subpoena disputed in
the motion. Therefore, if John Doe chooses to re-file the motion, the Court instructs John Doe to
attach to the motion a copy of the challenged subpoena.
The Court warns the parties that it 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.

2

In addition to compliance with Rule 11, the Court also notes the necessity of having such
information for the proper and efficient management of its docket. The motion must comply with
D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1C (“a motion ... shall be supported by a recitation of legal authority
incorporated into the motion”).
2