Securities and Exchange Commission v. Inteligentry, LTD et al
Filing
100
ORDER Denying 97 Motion to Quash Deposition of Investor and Licensed Manufacturer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/5/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
10
11
12
13
14
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, )
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
INTELIGENTRY, LTD. PLASMERG, INC.,
)
PTP LICENSING, LTD. and JOHN P. ROHNER, )
)
Defendants.
)
)
2:13-cv-00344-GMN-NJK
ORDER
15
16
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition of Investor and
17
Licensed Manufacturer. Dkt. # 97. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash
18
Deposition of Investor and Licensed Manufacturer. Dkt. # 97. The Court finds the matter properly
19
resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2.
20
BACKGROUND
21
In the instant case, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Plaintiff” or “SEC”) is suing
22
Inteligentry, Ltd., Plasmerg, Inc., PTP Licensing, Ltd. and John P. Rohner (collectively
23
“Defendants”) for violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)],
24
Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c)], and Section 10(b)
25
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. § 78 j(b) and Rule 10b-5 [17 § C.F.R. 240.10b-5].
26
Complaint at ¶ 8, Dkt. # 1. The Defendants’ Motion, filed by pro se Defendant Rohner, seeks to
27
quash the deposition and document production subpoena of a non-party to the instant litigation.
28
....
1
Defendant Rohner claims that the SEC has subpoenaed non-party Dan Nims to testify at a
2
deposition and to produce certain documents and items. Dkt. #97. Defendant Rohner asks this
3
Court to quash the subpoena on behalf of this non-party. Id. Defendant Rohner is the main
4
stockholder of the Defendant corporations Inteligentry, LTD., PlasmERG, Inc., and PTP Licensing,
5
LTD. Id., at 1. This Court has already informed Defendant Rohner that, while he may represent
6
himself as an individual, he may not represent the corporate Defendants in this case. See Dkt. # 87,
7
at 2-3. Now, in addition to improperly attempting to represent the corporate Defendants in this case,
8
Defendant Rohner is improperly attempting to file a motion with the Court on behalf of another
9
individual.
10
DISCUSSION
11
Defendant Rohner admits that he is not an attorney. See Doc. #97, at 7. Although a person
12
may represent himself or herself, a non-lawyer may not represent others. Rohner is not permitted to
13
engage in the unauthorized practice of law by purporting to represent or acting on behalf of the
14
corporate Defendants, non-party Nims, or anyone else. See Jackson v. United Artists Theatre
15
Circuit, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 586, 596 (D. Nev. 2011) (citing Taub v. Weber, 366 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir.
16
2004) (applying Oregon law on authorized practice of law) and In re Discipline of Lerner, 197 P.3d
17
1067, 1069-70, 1072-73 (Nev. 2008) (what constitutes unauthorized practice of law under Nevada
18
law)).
19
Defendant Rohner, therefore may not represent either the corporate Defendants in this case,
20
or the non-party upon whose behalf he filed the instant motion. As stated above, the Court has
21
already warned Defendant Rohner that corporations are required to have licensed counsel when they
22
appear in federal court and that he may not represent the corporate Defendants in the instant case.
23
Rowland v. California Men’s, Unit II Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993). Defendant
24
Rohner, a non-attorney, simply may not represent any party other than himself and, therefore, his
25
Motion to Quash, on behalf of a non-party individual, was improperly filed.1
26
27
28
1
To the extent Defendant Rohner asks this Court to stay discovery, that request is DENIED
without prejudice. Defendant Rohner fails to cite any points and authorities in support of his request,
including the correct standard for determining whether a stay of discovery is proper. See LR 7-2(d).
-2-
1
CONCLUSION
2
Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Rohner’s Motion to Quash Deposition of
4
5
Investor and Licensed Manufacturer (Dkt. # 97) is DENIED.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2013.
6
7
8
9
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-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?