Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. John Doe 1 - 33

Filing 16

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 13 Motion to Quash Subpoena, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/11/2015.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01754-WYD-MEH
COBBLER NEVADA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-33,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 11, 2015.
Before the Court is a letter construed as a Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by a Defendant
John Doe [filed September 9, 2015; docket #12]. The motion is denied without prejudice for the
following reasons.
From the content of the present motion, the Court infers that this John Doe seeks to proceed
in this litigation anonymously. However, he has failed to properly seek permission from the Court
to do so. 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 his motion in accordance with this order and all applicable local and federal
court rules, he may do so on or before September 30, 2015 and must first (or contemporaneously)
file a motion to proceed anonymously in accordance with Rule 11(a). 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.
Further, the Court notes that John Doe failed to file with his motion a copy of the challenged
subpoena. Therefore, if John Doe chooses to re-file his motion to quash, he is instructed to file a
copy of the challenged subpoena with the motion.
Finally, the Court reminds John Doe that Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A) requires the Court to
quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires
excessive travel by a non-party; (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if
no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. No other grounds are

listed.
The Clerk of the Court shall maintain the document at docket #12 under Level 2 restriction
until further order of the Court.

2