ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does

Filing 14

ORDER Granting 7 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
JOHN AND JANE DOES,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-02783-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 7)

16

Pending before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena filed by Sarah Augustin (“Movant”).

17

Docket No. 7. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 8. Plaintiff also filed a copy of the

18

subpoena. Docket No. 10. On April 5, 2017, this case was transferred to the undersigned magistrate

19

judge. Docket No. 12. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court GRANTS the motion to

20

quash.

21

Movant’s motion is clearly premised on the fact that the date for compliance that is identified

22

in the subpoena is erroneous, in that it requires compliance in 2016. Docket No. 7 at 1 (identifying first

23

ground for the motion as “The date filled by the plaintiff to produce documents reads - March 20, 2016.

24

This is one year past” (emphasis in original)). A review of the subpoena confirms that it is facially

25

deficient, in that it requires compliance on a date that has already passed. Docket No. 10 at 1.

26

Construing Movant’s motion liberally, as the Court must, see, e.g., Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237,

27

1241 (9th Cir. 2013), she seeks an order quashing the subpoena for failing to provide a reasonable time

28

for compliance, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i).

1

In responding to the motion, Plaintiff does not address this issue. Instead, Plaintiff states that

2

it was permitted to seek this third-party discovery and further makes generalized assertions that grounds

3

for quashing the subpoena do not exist. See Docket No. 8. For example, without elaboration, Plaintiff

4

contends that, “[i]n accordance with [Rule] 45(d)(3)(A)(i), the subpoena provided its recipient sufficient

5

time to respond.” Id. at 4; see also id. at 3 (“[t]here is no evidence or even reasonable argument that the

6

subject subpoena: (1) fails to allow a reasonable time for compliance” (emphasis in original)). Such

7

assertions simply ignore that zero time was given for compliance because the date for compliance had

8

already passed.

9

In short, Plaintiff served a subpoena that is defective on its face. See in re Subpoena to Jodie

10

Strain, 2013 WL 12155022, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 19, 2013) (“That subpoena was defective, however,

11

because the date for compliance had already passed”). Plaintiff’s response does not recognize that

12

obvious deficiency despite Plaintiff’s motion clearly identifying it. Nor has Plaintiff provided any

13

argument that this deficiency, while perhaps technical in nature, is insufficient grounds to quash the

14

subpoena. Cf. CF&I Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., 713 F.2d 494, 496 (9th Cir. 1983)

15

(affirming the quashing of a subpoena for failing to tender fees concurrently with service of the

16

subpoena, despite later attempt to tender fees more than two months before the date for compliance).

17

As such, Plaintiff has provided the Court no basis on which to do anything other than grant the relief

18

requested of quashing the facially defective subpoena.1

19

//

20

//

21

//

22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

The Court can envision several arguments that Plaintiff and its counsel could have raised in seeking
an outcome other than the quashing of the subpoena. But Plaintiff and its counsel did not raise those
arguments, and the Court declines to act as Plaintiff’s attorney by sua sponte raising arguments for them.
See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013). The Court is also
mindful of Plaintiff’s contention that quashing the subpoena may impede its ability to proceed with its case.
Docket No. 8 at 4 (asserting that the required information “would be lost” if the motion to quash is granted).
If the stakes are truly as high as Plaintiff contends, it is unclear why it did not respond in any fashion to
Movant’s argument.
2

1

For the reasons discussed above, the motion to quash is GRANTED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED: April 17, 2017

4
5

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3