Dasari
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 1 Petitioner's Rule 45 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Subpoena filed by Anand Dasari. It is further ORDERED that Petitioner must serve a copy of this Order on Filtered, Inc. It is further ORDERED that Filtered, Inc. d/b/a Filtered.ai has 14 days to comply with the subpoena from the time of service. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/26/2021. (daj, )
Case 4:21-mc-00109-ALM Document 4 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 95
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
ANAND DASARI
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v.
FILTERED, INC. d/b/a Filtered.ai
Civil Action No. 4:21-mc-109
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Rule 45 Motion to Compel Compliance with
Subpoena from Defendant Filtered, Inc. d/b/a Filtered.ai (Dkt. #1). Having considered the Motion,
the Court finds it should be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Anand Dasari and his business partner Ram Katamaraja founded two workforce
training and software companies, Novedea and Colaberry. Novedea Systems, Inc. v. Colaberry,
Inc., No. 6:20-cv-180-jdk, 2021 WL 1418983 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2021) (see Dkt. #101 ¶ 9). The
latter was a dormant entity formed to protect Novedea’s business and was used to fund the
development of Defendant, Filtered, Inc. See id. at ¶ 17.
Petitioner was assured that the funding would not exceed $1 million and that Colaberry
would be appropriately compensated. See id. at ¶ 37. Despite these assurances, Colaberry provided
approximately $1.5 million in funding without receiving appropriate compensation. See id. at ¶
37.
This problem was exacerbated when Petitioner was asked to take a reduced ownership
interest in Filtered, Inc. so that it could bring in more equity investors. See id. at ¶ 38. Petitioner
and Mr. Katamaraja attempted but ultimately failed to agree to terms to buy out Petitioner. See id.
Case 4:21-mc-00109-ALM Document 4 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 96
at ¶ 42. On April 6, 2020, with no resolution, Petitioner sued Colaberry and Mr. Katamaraja. See
id. at pp. 18–26.
As part of discovery, on March 19, 2021, Petitioner served a subpoena to Filtered, Inc.
regarding the Colaberry/Filtered, Inc. transaction (Dkt. #1, Exhibit 2). The subpoena requests the
following documents related to the Colaberry/Filtered transaction (Dkt. #1 ¶ 8):
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Investment presentations;
Valuation reports;
Record of payments from Colaberry/Katamaraja to Filtered/Paul Bilodeau;
Records of payments from Filtered/Paul Bilodeau to Colaberry/Katamaraja;
Communications with Colaberry / Katamaraja;
Communications with Paul Bilodeau;
All software source code transmitted from Colaberry to Filtered;
Agreements between Colaberry and Filtered;
Employees and contractors hired.
Filtered, Inc. did not respond (Dkt. #1 at p. 1). On April 19, 2021, Petitioner asked Filtered, Inc.
to meet and confer (Dkt. #1 Exhibit 4). Filtered, Inc. did not respond (Dkt. #1 at p. 2).
On May 10, 2021, Petitioner served Filtered, Inc. with the Motion to Compel Compliance
with a Subpoena (Dkt. #2, Exhibit 2). On May 25, 2021, Petitioner filed a response in support of
its Motion (Dkt. #2). On July 2, 2021, Petitioner filed a Request for Ruling or, in the Alternative,
Request for Oral Hearing (Dkt. #3). Filtered, Inc. never responded.
LEGAL STANDARD
Matters relating to the enforcement of a subpoena are to be directed to the court “for the
district where compliance is required.” FED . R. CIV. P. 45(d). Those matters include “the duty to
address objections to a subpoena when the serving party moves the court for an order compelling
production or inspection of documents”. Trover Grp., Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, No. 2:13CV-1047-WCB, 2015 WL 11117083, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2015) (citing FED. R. CIV. P.
45(d)(2)(B)(i)). “While it is true that Rule 45(f) permits the court in the district where compliance
is required to transfer a subpoena-related motion to the issuing court if the person subject to the
2
Case 4:21-mc-00109-ALM Document 4 Filed 07/26/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 97
subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances, the motion must be filed in the
first instance with the court in the district where compliance is required.” Id.
ANALYSIS
Petitioner asks the Court to order Filtered, Inc. and its President, Paul Bilodeau to produce
all documents responsive to the subpoena within 10 days. Because the subpoena requires
compliance within this Court’s division, this Court has jurisdiction to compel compliance with the
subpoena. See FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(2), (d)(3), (f); Trover Grp., 2015 WL 11117083, at *1. This
means that all matters related to enforcement of the Subpoena are judiciously handled by the Court.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d).
To date, Filtered, Inc. has not complied with the subpoena, has not defended itself in this
action, and has not offered any reason for the Court to transfer the subpoena-related motion (Dkt.
#1; Dkt. #2). The subpoena requests relevant documents; the dispute is over the Filtered/Colaberry
transaction and the subpoena asks for documents related to this transaction. Accordingly, the Court
grants Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s Rule 45 Motion to Compel Compliance with
.
Subpoena from Defendant Filtered, Inc. d/b/a Filtered.ai (Dkt. #1) is hereby GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner must serve a copy of this Order on Filtered, Inc.
It is further ORDERED that Filtered, Inc. d/b/a Filtered.ai has 14 days to comply with the
subpoena from the time of service.
SIGNED this 26th day of July, 2021.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?