Thompsons Film, LLC, The v. Does 1-94

Filing 23

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 21 the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by John Doe 2/5, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/29/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00687-WYD-MEH
THE THOMPSONS FILM, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES 2-8,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 29, 2013.
The Motion to Quash Subpoena [filed May 24, 2013; docket #21] filed by John Doe 2/51 is
denied without prejudice on the following grounds.
First, Doe 2/5 has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Rule 11(a) 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 Doe 2/5 seeks to proceed in this
litigation anonymously. However, he has failed to seek permission from the Court to do so. See KBeech, 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 Doe 2/5 wishes to re-file his
motion in accordance with this order and all applicable local and federal court rules, he must first
(or contemporaneously) file a motion to proceed anonymously and provide to the Court his name,
address, telephone numbers and email addresses in accordance with Rule 11(a) and D.C. Colo.

1

The Court observes that the Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses listed in the Motion
correspond with John Doe Defendants 2 and 5 identified in Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (See
docket #1-1.) From the content of the Motion, the Court infers that both IP addresses belong to the
same individual. Thus, the Court will refer to the Defendant as Doe 2/5.

LCivR 10.1K. If Doe 2/5 wishes to keep his identifying information confidential, he may file his
Signature Blocks separately, and may request that the document be maintained under Restriction
Level 2 pursuant to the procedure set forth in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.2. 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.
Third, with respect to Doe 2/5’s request to quash, no party has filed a copy of the challenged
subpoena with this Court. 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.
Finally, Doe 2/5 has not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(D) and D.C. Colo. LCivR
5.1G. 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.”

2