AF Holdings, LLC, v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Filing 1

MOTION by Plaintiff for order to show cause why Comcast Cable Services LLC should not be found in contempt of court for failure to comply with subpoena duces tecum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit Declaration) (Duffy, Paul) (Docket text modified by clerk's office) ((vmj, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AF HOLDINGS, LLC,
CASE NO.
Plaintiff,
Judge:
v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC,
Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COMCAST
CABLE SERVICES LLC SHOULD NOT BE FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
Plaintiff AF HOLDINGS, LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 45(c), 45(e) and 37(b)(2)(A)(vii), hereby moves this
Court for an order to show cause why Comcast Cable Services LLC (“Comcast”) should not be
held in contempt of Court for failure to timely comply with a subpoena duces tecum issued to it
from this Court.
Comcast should be found to be in civil contempt of this Court for its willful disregard of
a Court-authorized subpoena duces tecum served on it on or about March 14, 2012. (A true and
correct copy of that subpoena (the “Subpoena”) is attached hereto at Exhibit “A” and made a
part hereof.) Under Rule 45, Comcast was required to assert objections within fourteen (14)
days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). The Subpoena called for production of information
requested therein on or before April 20, 2012.
Plaintiff did not object within fourteen days of service (i.e., March 28, 2012), and it
did not produce the documents called for in the Subpoena by April 20, 2012. While Comcast
1

served a purported objection to the Subpoena on April 26, 2012, it was untimely. To date,
Comcst has produced no documents described in the Subpoena. Pursuant to Local Rule 37.2,
undersigned counsel communicated with counsel for Comcast through telephone messages, and
an exchange of e-mail communications, between May 2 and 4, 2012, but after good faith
attempts to resolve differences, the parties have been unable to reach an accord.
A subpoena issued out of this Court is a Court order. See Rule 45(a)(3). The Subpoena
set forth an unambiguous command, requiring Comcast to produce documents on or before April 20,
2012. Comcast violated that command by not timely objecting or producing documents in accordance
with that command.

Comcast’s violation of the Subpoena was significant, in that it did not substantially

comply with the Order. Comcast, by taking no action in connection with the Subpoena for more than five
(5) weeks after being served with it, failed to make a reasonable and diligent effort to comply with the
Subpoena.
This “issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without
adequate excuse to obey the subpoena.” Rule 45(e).

Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that

this Court enter an order to show cause why Comcast should not be found in contempt of Court
for its failure to comply with a Subpoena. Plaintiff further moves that the Court order Comcast o
immediately produce to Plaintiff the documents requested in the Subpoena.

[intentionally left blank]

2

Respectfully submitted,
HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DATED: May 8, 2012
By:

3

/s/ Paul Duffy
Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496)
Prenda Law Inc.
161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff