TCYK, LLC v. John Does 1-15

Filing 17

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 14 The Motion of John Doe No. 14 to Quash Subpoena, Pro Se, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 2/21/2014. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03496-WYD-MEH
TCYK, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES 1-15,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 21, 2014.
The Motion of John Doe No. 14 to Quash Subpoena, Pro Se [filed February 20, 2014; docket
#14] is denied without prejudice for failure 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 No. 14 seeks to proceed in
this litigation anonymously. However, he has failed to properly seek permission from the Court to
do so in a separate motion.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 No. 14 wishes to re-file his motion to quash in accordance with this order
and all applicable local and federal court rules, he may do so on or before March 7, 2014 and must

1

Although Defendant states that disclosure of his identity to the Plaintiff subjects him to “lost
business, public embarrassment and damaging legal fees, such statement fails to satisfy the
requirements necessary for proceeding anonymously in this case and 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.

first (or contemporaneously) file a motion to proceed anonymously in accordance with Rule 11(a).2
With the motion to proceed anonymously, John Doe No. 14 must provide to the Court his name,
address, telephone number and email address in the form of a separate written “supplement” to the
motion. If John Doe No. 14 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. 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.

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