Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01437/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01437-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1437-BTM (MDD)

ORDER DENYING DOE #9's

MOTION TO QUASH

[ECF NO. 7]

vs.

JOHN DOES, 1 through 9,

Defendants.

On August 23, 2012, Defendant Doe #9 filed a Motion to Quash a subpoena

issued in connection with this case. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff responded in opposition on

September 4, 2012. (ECF No. 9). At issue is a document subpoena to third-party Cox

Communications to obtain subscriber information for certain Internet Protocol

addresses. (See ECF No. 5). The subpoena was issued pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 in

the Northern District of Georgia, the headquarters of Cox Communications, and

called for the production of documents at the offices of counsel for Plaintiff in the

Central District of California. (ECF No. 9-2). In the end, the Court is faced with a

motion to quash filed in the wrong district court challenging a facially deficient

subpoena. 

Defendant Doe #9 argues that the subpoena is procedurally deficient because it

requires the third party to produce documents more than 100 miles away in

contravention of Rule 45(b)(3)(ii). Defendant Doe #9 also asserts that the subpoena

- 1 - 12cv1437-BTM (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01437-BTM-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/06/12 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

should be quashed because it requires of the production of “a trade secrete [sic] or

other confidential research, development or commercial information.” (ECF No. 7). 

Plaintiff contends that the motion should be denied because it was required to

be brought in the issuing district, that Plaintiff lacks standing and that the

subscriber information requested by the subpoena cannot constitute a trade secret or

other commercial confidential information. (ECF No. 9).

Rule 45(b)(3) provides that a motion to quash or modify a subpoena be brought

in the issuing district. The subpoena was issued in the Northern District of Georgia. 

Plaintiff is correct that this motion should have been filed in that court. 

In reviewing the motion papers, however, it is obvious that the subpoena is

procedurally deficient, although not for the reasons suggested by Defendant. 

Defendant, relying on Rule 45(b)(3)(ii), argues that the subpoena is deficient because

it requires a non-party to travel more than 100 miles. Defendant is wrong on that

score; Rule 45(b)(3)(ii) only applies when a personal appearance of a non-party is

required. The instant subpoena calls only for the production of documents which

does not implicate the 100 mile rule. 

Nevertheless, the subpoena is facially deficient. Rule 45(a)(2)(C) requires that

document subpoenas to third parties be issued from the district “where the

production . . . is to be made.” Production refers to the delivery of documents, not

their retrieval. Orthoflex, Inc. v. Thermotek, Inc., 2012 WL 1038801 *3 (D. Ariz.

March 28, 2012). The instant subpoena required the production of documents in the

Central District of California. Consequently, if the third party was amenable to

service there, that is where the subpoena should have been issued. If the non-party

is not amenable to service there, the subpoena properly could have been obtained in

the Northern District of Georgia but only if production also was to occur there. A

Rule 45 subpoena duces tecum issued in the Northern District of Georgia cannot

lawfully require production in the Central District of California. As it stands, the

subpoena is unenforceable. 

- 2 - 12cv1437-BTM (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01437-BTM-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/06/12 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

This issue previously has been addressed with this Plaintiff. In Patrick

Collins, Inc., v. John Does 34-51, Case No. 11cv2143-BEN (MDD), at ECF No. 39, this

Court addressed the identical violation of Rule 45 regarding a different service

provider. This Court made it clear to Plaintiff, instant counsel was co-counsel in that

case, that Rule 45 required that a subpoena duces tecum issued to a third party must

be obtained where the documents are to be produced. Id.

Consequently, the Court is faced with a motion to quash filed in the wrong

district challenging an unenforceable subpoena. But, jurisdiction before this Court is

lacking. Defendant’s motion must be denied on that basis. If Defendant Doe #9

wishes to continue to challenge the production of documents pursuant to this

subpoena, a proper motion should be filed in the Northern District of Georgia. 

Defendant may request that court to refer the matter back to this court. Plaintiff is

ordered to serve a copy of this Order upon Cox Communications. Any production of

documents required by the instant subpoena is stayed until September 21, 2012, to

allow for Defendant Doe #9 to file an appropriate motion in the Northern District of

Georgia and seek a further stay from that court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 3 - 12cv1437-BTM (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01437-BTM-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/06/12 Page 3 of 3