Rosebrough et al v. Bannum Place, Inc., d/b/a et al

Filing 28

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 27 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DONALD ROSEBROUGH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 18-cv-10222
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
BANNUM PLACE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF #27)
On November 1, 2018, Plaintiffs purported to serve a subpoena for documents on
non-party Charter Communications Corporate Offices. (See ECF #27 at Pg. ID 161-164.)
The subpoena seeks the production of certain phone records, including “all incoming and
outgoing calls, text[s,] and email messages from Bannum Place Facility.” (Id. at Pg. ID
162.) Charter Communications Corporate Offices has not responded to the subpoena, and
Plaintiffs have now filed a motion for an order to show cause why the Court should not
hold Charter Communications Corporate Offices in contempt for failing to produce the
requested documents. The motion is DENIED for three reasons.
First, the subpoena and accompanying documents are confusing and riddled with
inconsistencies, and the Court therefore cannot determine that Plaintiffs ever properly
served “Charter Communications Corporate Offices” with the subpoena. In Plaintiffs’
motion for an order to show cause, Plaintiffs assert that “non-party Charter
Communications Corporate Offices [has] refused to comply with the subpoena request.”

1

(Id. at Pg. ID 157.)

And Plaintiffs seek a show cause order directed at “Charter

Communications Corporate Offices.” However, the cover letter accompanying Plaintiffs’
subpoena and the subpoena itself are not directed at an entity called “Charter
Communications Corporate Offices.” Instead, the letter and subpoena appear to be directed
to a wholly different entity – “Spectrum Corporate Office.” (Id. at Pg. ID 161-62.)
Moreover, it does not appear as if Plaintiffs served the subpoena on either “Charter
Communications Corporates Offices” or “Spectrum Corporate Office.” Indeed, the Proof
of Service attached to the subpoena indicates that Plaintiffs served the subpoena on a third
entity, “Spectrum Business.” (Id. at Pg. ID 163.)
Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that these three entities are related in any
way.1 Nor have Plaintiffs shown that they could properly serve “Charter Communications
Corporate Offices” with a subpoena by serving the subpoena on either “Spectrum
Corporate Office” or “Spectrum Business.” Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs have not
provided sufficient evidence that they ever actually served “Charter Communications
Corporate Offices” with the subpoena. Plaintiffs are therefore not entitled to a show cause
order directed at “Charter Communications Corporate Offices.”

1

The Court questions whether “Charter Communications Corporate Offices” or
“Spectrum Corporate Office” are actual corporate entities capable of accepting
service of a subpoena. It may be that Plaintiffs meant to serve entities called
“Charter Communications” and/or “Spectrum” through serving the subpoena at their
respective corporate offices, but it is far from clear that the entities actually named
in the motion and subpoena exist and are capable of accepting service of a subpoena.
2

Second, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently established that the manner in which they
served the subpoena is valid. Plaintiffs purported to serve the subpoena by mailing it, by
First Class Mail, to an individual named Michael Tillman at “Spectrum Business.” (Id. at
Pg. ID 163.) The cover letter companying the subpoena further indicates that the subpoena
was emailed to a “[e-mail]” and faxed to an unidentified phone number located
in Missouri.2 (Id. at Pg. ID 161.) Plaintiffs have not explained who Michael Tillman is or
to whom the email address “[e-mail]” and fax number belong. Nor have they
explained how or why it would be appropriate to serve the subpoena on “Charter
Communications Corporate Offices” through any of these methods. Accordingly, the
Court is not persuaded that the manner of service of the subpoena is sufficient.
Finally, even if Plaintiffs could establish that they properly served Charter
Communications Corporate Offices with the subpoena, Plaintiffs would still not be entitled
to a show cause order due to Charter’s failure to respond to the subpoena. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(A) provides that a subpoena may command “production of
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles
of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Here,
the subpoena was directed to an entity located in Stanford Connecticut. (See id. at Pg. ID

2

Confusingly, despite faxing the cover letter and subpoena to a phone number in
Missouri, the cover letter companying the subpoena identifies the intended recipient
as “Spectrum Corporate Office” located in Stamford, Connecticut. (ECF #27 at Pg.
ID 161.) And Michael Tillman, the individual to whom Plaintiffs mailed the
subpoena, is not located in either Missouri or Connecticut. He is apparently located
in Wixom, Michigan. (See id. at Pg. ID 163.)
3

162.) However, the subpoena required the production of documents at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s
offices in Southfield, Michigan. (See id.) Southfield, Michigan is more than 100 miles
from Stamford, Connecticut. And Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that “Charter
Communications Corporate Offices” regularly transacts business within 100 miles of
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s offices. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently established that
the subpoena complies with the requirements of Rule 45. This is an independent reason to
deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
For all of the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs are not entitled to a show cause order
directed at Charter Communications Corporate Offices. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for
an order to show cause (ECF #27) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 9, 2019

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on January 9, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4