Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 107.2.134.163

Filing 15

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 13 Defendant's Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena and Motion to Dismiss, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 8/13/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01523-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 107.2.134.163,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 13, 2013.
Defendant’s Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena and Motion to Dismiss [filed August 7,
2013; docket #13] is denied without prejudice on several grounds.
First, the pending 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 Defendant 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 Defendant 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 number and email address in accordance with Rule 11(a) and D.C. Colo. LCivR
10.1K. If Defendant wishes to keep his identifying information confidential, Defendant may file
his Signature Block 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.

Second, Defendant has failed to provide the Court with a copy of the challenged subpoena.
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). As the party challenging the subpoena,
Defendant must demonstrate that the Court is authorized to rule on his motion to quash.
With respect to the remainder of the motion, due to its varied requests for relief, adjudication
of the single motion will likely require different standards of review and legal analyses of both
dispositive and non-dispositive issues. Though the Court is puzzled by Defendant’s apparent request
to dismiss for improper joinder in this single-defendant action, if Defendant wishes to renew his
request for dispositive relief, he must do so in a separate motion. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1C (“A
motion shall be made in a separate paper.”)