Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.237.107.180

Filing 16

MINUTE ORDER denying with prejudice 13 Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 04/26/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00742-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.237.107.180,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 26, 2013.
Defendant John Doe’s Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena [filed April 26, 2013; docket
#13] is denied without prejudice for the following reasons. First, the Defendant failed to attach
a copy of the challenged subpoena to the present motion for the Court’s consideration. Therefore,
if Defendant chooses to re-file the motion, the Court instructs the Defendant to attach to the motion
a copy of the challenged subpoena.
Second, the Defendant 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 Defendant seeks to proceed in this
litigation anonymously. However, Defendant 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

1

Although Defendant requests permission to file the motion “without revealing any
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.

Defendant wishes to re-file the motion in accordance with this order and all applicable local and
federal court rules, Defendant may do so on or before May 10, 2013 and must first (or
contemporaneously) file a motion to proceed anonymously in accordance with Rule 11(a).2 With
such filing, Defendant must provide to the Court Defendant’s name, address, telephone number and
email address in the form of a separate written “supplement” to the motion. If Defendant wishes to
keep this supplement (containing the identifying information) confidential, Defendant may file a
motion to file the supplement under restriction 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.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to serve a copy of this order upon Defendant pursuant
to the information provided in the document at docket #14.

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.
2