John Doe v. Office of the Kansas Securities Commissioner
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing 1 Motion to Quash. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson on 08/30/2017. (cv)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF GOOGLE CASE ID 88251000017343 JOHN DOE,
Case No. 2:17-mc-213-JAR-GEB
OFFICE OF THE KANSAS SECURITIES
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case was filed as a miscellaneous action by Movant John Doe, asking this Court to
quash a search warrant issued by Shawnee County, Kansas District Court Judge Richard D.
Anderson to Google, Inc. for electronic mail associated with a particular e-mail address
belonging to John Doe. The search warrant was issued upon application by Defendant Office of
the Kansas Securities Commissioner (“KSC”). Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 9), arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Movant’s request. The
motion is fully briefed and the Court is prepared to rule. As described more fully below, the
Court grants Defendant’s motion and dismisses Movant’s motion to quash for lack of
On March 8, 2017, the KSC made application to the District Court of Shawnee County,
Kansas for a search warrant to obtain the electronic mail associated with address
[REDACTED]@gmail.com, an email address maintained by Google, Inc. (“Google”). That same
day, the application was granted and the search warrant was issued by District Court Judge
Richard D. Anderson. In issuing the search warrant, Judge Anderson found “probable cause to
believe that an offense against the laws of Kansas had been committed and that certain
contraband, fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of such offense” are located in the sought-after
email. The search warrant directs Google to produce all e-mail “of any kind sent to, from and
through the e-mail address . . . between August 1, 2015 at 12:00 AM and March 6, 2016 at 11:59
PM.”1 The warrant states that “such information will be searched by law enforcement only for
pertinent information relating to the offering, buying or selling of securities or other related
criminal activity as might pertain to such transactions.”2
On March 10, 2017, the KSC served the search warrant on Google at its offices
in Mountain View, California. On May 18, 2017, Google sent an email notification to the
subscriber at [REDACTED]@gmail.com, indicating that it had received the search warrant and
that the contents sought would be disclosed to the KSC unless Google received a file-stamped
objection within seven days of the notification. Movant received this e-mail, and immediately
informed Google of his desire to retain counsel to file an objection, and requested a copy of the
legal process. On the evening of May 18, 2017, Google responded with a redacted copy of the
On May 22, 2017, Movant requested Google communicate with his counsel, and
on the same day counsel acknowledged the same. On May 24, 2017, Movant filed the motion to
quash, to initiate this matter. This case was not filed as a civil action. In its motion to quash,
Movant claims to bring this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 2707(a).
Defendant moves to dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction because: (1) the Court
lacks jurisdiction under the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”); (2) this Court is precluded
from reviewing a state-issued search warrant under the Younger abstention doctrine; and (3) this
Court is precluded from reviewing the search warrant under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
The Court agrees that it lacks a jurisdictional basis to decide this motion to quash, but it
need not delve into the Younger abstention or Rooker-Feldman doctrines to reach this
conclusion. Movant initiated this miscellaneous action citing two grounds for jurisdiction: 28
U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 2707(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has “original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.”3 18 U.S.C. § 2707(a) provides that except in certain circumstances, “any provider of
electronic communication service, subscriber, or other person aggrieved by any violation of this
chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or
intentional state of mind may, in a civil action, recover from the person or entity, other than the
United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.”4 Movant has
not filed a civil action, which is “commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”5 Therefore,
neither § 1331 nor the SCA provides Movant with a jurisdictional basis to obtain relief on a
motion to quash a state court issued search warrant in federal court without first initiating a civil
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 9) is granted. Movant’s Motion to Quash (Doc. 1) is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2017
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28 U.S.C. § 1331 (emphasis added).
18 U.S.C. § 2707(a) (emphasis added).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 3.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?