Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20718/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20718-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GARY KREMEN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN MICHAEL COHEN, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 98-20718 JW (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT COHEN’S

MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS OR FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDERS

On March 8, 2007, Defendant Cohen (“Defendant”) filed two motions, each of which

seeks to have a subpoena quashed, a protective order and an order for sanctions. On March 13, 1

2007, Defendant filed a third motion that seeks to have a third subpoena quashed, a protective

order and an order for sanctions. On March 8 & 19, 2007, the court issued interim orders

denying Defendant’s requests for sanctions without prejudice to motions brought separately,

as required by Civil Local Rule 7-8(a). On April 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the

three motions. Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it

appropriate to issue this order without further briefing or oral argument. Based on the moving

and opposition papers submitted, 

Case 5:98-cv-20718-JW Document 1273 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 As Plaintiff concedes, there is no “District of Texas.” 2

 Because the subpoenas are unenforceable on their face, any ruling on Defendant’s

3

over-breadth and relevance arguments would essentially constitute an improper advisory opinion. 

See, e.g., Schneider v. Chertoff, 450 F. 3d 944, 959 (9 Cir. 2006) (noting court has no authority th

to issue advisory opinions).

ORDER, page 2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motions for protective orders are

GRANTED as to all three subpoenas. The subpoenas are defective on their face. All three

subpoenas violate Rule 45(a)(2)(C) because they were not issued from the court for the district

where the productions were to be made. The subpoenas issued to Walter Howard and to the

Bureau of Security and Investigative Services identify the issuing court as the Northern District

of California, but require production in the Central District of California and Southern District of

California, respectively. The subpoena issued to Southwest Airlines identifies the issuing court

as the “District of Texas” but requires production in the Southern District of California. Rule 2

45(c)(3)(B), cited by Plaintiff, does not relieve Plaintiff of the 45(a)(2)(C) requirement to issue

the subpoenas from the proper district court. A protective order is warranted to: 1) protect

Defendant from third parties unwittingly disclosing information about him, which they would not

otherwise disclose, based on facially defective, unenforceable subpoenas, and 2) allow Defendant

to challenge the breadth of the subpoenas and the relevance of the information sought.3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is without prejudice to Plaintiff serving

subpoenas that comply with all requirements of Rule 45 on Walter Howard, the Bureau of

Security and Investigative Services and Southwest Airlines. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of the court’s order finding that the subpoenas

are unenforceable, the court will not at this time address Defendant’s over-breadth and relevance

arguments. This order is without prejudice to Defendant seeking protective orders in the event

Plaintiff issues valid subpoenas which Defendant in good faith believes exceed the proper scope

of post-judgment discovery. Any such motion(s) for protective order(s) shall address separately

each category of documents Defendant contends exceeds the scope of post-judgment discovery. 

In responding to any such motion(s), Plaintiff shall also separately address each category of

documents at issue.

Case 5:98-cv-20718-JW Document 1273 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s unnoticed motion for an injunction against

Defendant filing further motions related to Plaintiff’s post-judgment discovery without prior

court review is DENIED. Plaintiff failed to properly notice the motion pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-2. Moreover, Defendant’s current motions were at least partially meritorious based on

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 45, and thus no such injunction is

warranted at this time. Plaintiff makes much of Defendant’s misconduct in this case. However,

Defendant’s misconduct does not relieve Plaintiff from the requirements of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Nor does it automatically preclude Defendant from seeking protection from

improper subpoenas.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than April 19, 2007, Plaintiff shall serve a

copy of this order on the subpoenaed parties, and shall promptly file a proof of such service.

Dated: 4/16/07

_________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:98-cv-20718-JW Document 1273 Filed 04/16/07 Page 3 of 3