Southern United States Trade Association v. John Doe 1 et al

Filing 162

ORDER denying 155 Motion for Leave to File Second Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and 156 Motion for Leave to File Third Motion to QuashSubpoenas Duces Tecum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (clm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SOUTHERN UNITED STATES
TRADE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 10-1669

SUMIT GUDDH, ET AL.

SECTION: “L” (4)
ORDER

Before the Court is is Defendant, Yunaysis Mata’s (“Mata”) Motion for Leave to File Second
Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum (R. Doc. 155), seeking a motion to quash. Also before
the Court is Defendant, Sumit Guddh’s (“Guddh”) Motion for Leave to File Third Motion to Quash
Subpoenas Duces Tecum (R. Doc. 156), also seeking a motion to quash. Both proposed motions are
unopposed.1 Both proposed motions are noticed for submission on Wednesday, November 7, 2012.
Mata’s motion “moves that the Subpoenas Duces Tecum for production/discovery directed to
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) be quashed.” (R. Doc. 155-2, p. 1). In support of the Motion,
however, Mata does not attach a subpoena directed at T-Mobile, but instead attaches an email directed
to “The Strauss Law Firm.” (R. Doc. 155-3, p. 5). The request to the Strauss law firm appears to be
for “[a]ll documents and correspondence You sent to or received from Juyasis Mata, including e-mail.”

1

Plaintiffs, Southern United States Trade Association, et al., (“Southern United”) make overtures toward
furnishing an “opposition” in their now-denied Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Consideration of Defendants’
Motions to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum (R. Doc. 159), but ultimately all of their arguments pertain not to the
substance of Guddh’s and Mata’s motions, but rather to whether the substance does or does not warrant expedited
consideration. The presiding U.S. District Court Judge has already denied R. Doc. 159 as moot (R. Doc. 161), and
consideration.
even if the judge had not done so, the outcome the Court reaches as to R. Docs. 155-56 renders the absence of any
opposition irrelevant.

Similarly, Guddh’s motion states that “[p]laintiffs have, for the third time, AGAIN served
Subpoena Duces Tecums on October 3, 2012, on the same third parties, Google Inc. and BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Florida.” (R. Doc. 156-1, p. 3). Guddh requests that these
third subpoenas be quashed. Id. at 9. Guddh attaches as an “example” of Plaintiffs’ far-reaching
discovery a notice of deposition to “Thomas G. Buck, Esq.” However, Guddh fails to attach any
evidence of a third subpoena directed at either Google or BellSouth.
After investigation of the contents of Guddh and Mata’s respective motions for leave to file,
the Court must deny them both. As a matter of common sense, the Court can only rule on matters for
which it is provided an adequate evidentiary foundation. Further, Local Rule 7.4 states, “[i]f the

motion requires consideration of facts not in the record, the movant must also file and serve upon
opposing counsel a copy of all evidence supporting the motion.” L.R. 7.4 (emphasis added). In this
case, although the motions argue that subpoena requests have been propounded on T-Mobile, Google,
and BellSouth, neither motion provides the Court with any factual support for these assertions.
Allowing these thoroughly unsupported motions to be placed on the Court’s docket would conflict
with the principles of judicial economy.
Further, it cannot be said that Guddh and Mata, who are proceeding pro se, are unfamiliar with
the process of filing motions into Court, particularly motions to quash subpoenas. For example, in a
previously filed Motion to Quash (R. Doc. 128), Mata properly attached the correct subpoena to her
motion. Similarly, in a previously filed Motion to Quash (R. Doc. 129), Guddh attached the correct
subpoena to his motion. In their new motions, Guddh and Mata request the same type of relief as they
did before. “Everyone who appears in court in proper person . . . must be familiar with these rules.
Willful failure to comply with these rules, or a false certificate of compliance, is cause for disciplinary
action.” L.R. 83.2.7.
2

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant, Yunaysis Mata’s (“Mata”) Motion for Leave to File
Second Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum (R. Doc. 155) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, Sumit Guddh’s (“Guddh”) Motion for Leave
to File Third Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum (R. Doc. 156) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of October 2012.

KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3