ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does

Filing 17

ORDER Granting 12 Motion to Quash. Ms. Pieritz's motion to quash the subpoena to Charter Communications is hereby GRANTED and the subpoena is QUASHED to the extent it relates to Ms. Pieritz. Plaintiff shall immediately serve a copy of this order on Charter Communications, and shall file a proof of service on the docket by noon on 5/8/17. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/5/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN AND JANE DOES,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00123-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 12)

16

Pending before the Court is the motion to quash filed by pro se litigant Jacqueline R. Pieritz.

17

Docket No. 12.1 As both the motion itself and the later Court order addressing it make clear, Ms. Pieritz

18

argues that the subpoena to Charter Communications should be quashed because her I.P. address is different

19

than the I.P. address identified. Docket No. 12 at 1 (“I.P. address that says associated w/ the BitTorrent is

20

slightly different from ours”); Docket No. 15 (“The Court construes the letter as a motion to quash the

21

subpoena Plaintiff served on Charter Communications based on the fact that her I.P. address differs from

22

the I.P. address listed”). Although Plaintiff filed a response to the motion, it fails to address the single

23

argument raised. Docket No. 16. Instead, it mistakenly asserts that “[t]he movant’s only argument for

24

objecting to the subpoena is that she does not want the subpoenaed party to produce her identifying

25

information.” Id. at 2. The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Ms. Pieritz’s actual argument

26
27
28

1

The Court is required to construe filings of pro se litigants liberally. E.g., Blaisdell v. Frappiea,
729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013).

1

that her I.P. address differs from the I.P. address identified as acquiescence that the I.P. addresses do not

2

match and, further, that quashing the subpoena is therefore proper as to Ms. Pieritz. See Newdow v.

3

Congress of the United States of America, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1070 n.5 (E.D. Cal. 2006); Local Rule

4

7-2(d).2

5

Accordingly, Ms. Pieritz’s motion to quash the subpoena to Charter Communications is hereby

6

GRANTED and the subpoena is QUASHED to the extent it relates to Ms. Pieritz. Plaintiff shall

7

immediately serve a copy of this order on Charter Communications, and shall file a proof of service on the

8

docket by noon on May 8, 2017.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED

10

Dated: May 5, 2017

11
________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s response appears to be identical or nearly identical to the boilerplate brief that was found
non-responsive by the Court previously, resulting in the granting of a motion to quash. See ME2 Prods. v.
Does, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58241, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2017) (granting motion to quash in which
Plaintiff failed to respond to sole argument advanced); see also Case No. 2:16-cv-2783-JCM-NJK, Docket
No. 8 (responsive brief filed in that case). As was made clear therein, the Court is not Plaintiff’s attorney
and it will not make arguments for Plaintiff and its counsel. See id. at *2 n.1. “If the stakes [in quashing
the subpoena] are truly as high as Plaintiff contends, it is unclear why it did not respond in any fashion to
Movant’s argument.” Id.
2