United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; LUCASFILM LTD. LLC; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION; WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.; MVL FILM FINANCE LLC; NEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC.; and TURNER ENTERTAINMENT CO., Petitioners,
VIDANGEL, INC., Defendant.
ORDER SETTING HEARING AND REQUIRING PETITIONERS TO
WADDOUPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
February 22, 2019, Petitioners filed four Motions to Compel
Responses to subpoenas issued in Disney Enterprises, Inc.
et al. v. VidAngel, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109-AB (C.D.
Cal.) (the “California Case”). Plaintiffs in that
case allege that VidAngel, Inc. “infring[ed]
Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright
Act” and also allege that VidAngel “violat[ed]
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (2:16-cv-04109, ECF No.
228 at 2.)
four subpoenas were served on four non-parties, one of whom
was Bill Aho. Mr. Aho was served with a subpoena to produce
documents on January 23, 2019. (ECF No. 10-2 at 2.) Mr. Aho
has not produced any documents in response to that subpoena.
(See ECF No. 10 at 2.) On February 22, 2019,
Petitioners filed an Expedited Short Form Discovery Motion to
Compel Bill Aho's Response to Subpoena Duces Tecum. (ECF
No. 3.) On February 25, 2019 the Petitioners paid their
filing fee, and the filing date of the case was changed to
2/25/2019. (ECF No. 6.) On February 27, 2019, the court
entered an order requiring service of Petitioners'
motions. (ECF No. 7.) On March 1, 2019 the Petitioners filed
a response to the court's order explaining that three of
the respondents, including Mr. Aho, were represented by David
Quinto, and explaining that David Quinto is registered to use
ECF in this district, thus satisfying the requirement for
service under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(E). (See ECF No.
8 at 2.) Petitioners also requested that consideration of
three of their Motions “proceed with their filing date
of February 25, 2019.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.)
March 4, 2019, Petitioners filed a Motion to Expedite
Consideration of Motion to Compel Bill Aho's Response to
Subpoena Duces Tecum. (ECF No. 10.) In this Motion,
Petitioners explained that Mr. Aho is scheduled to have a
deposition on March 11, 2019. (ECF No. 10 at 2.) Petitioners
seek to obtain the documents at issue prior to the
deposition, and “request that the Court compel
production of the documents by March 8, 2019 . . . .”
(ECF No. 10 at 3.)
March 4, 2019, Mr. Aho, through his attorney Jay M. Philpot,
filed a Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion and
Counter Motion to Quash. (ECF No. 12.) In this Response, Mr.
Aho made three arguments. First, that “[t]he subpoena
is untimely under the active scheduling order in the Central
District of California, because it was not served
sufficiently in advance of the March 18, 2019 fact discovery
cut-off.” (ECF No. 12 at 1.) Second, that “[t]he
subpoena is invalid under DUCivR 37-1(a)(9) because it was
not served with a copy of the local rule; and under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45(c)(2)(A) because it
requires compliance outside the 100 miles allowed.”
(ECF No. 12 at 2.) And third, that “Plaintiffs'
request is also overbroad and an impermissible fishing
expedition.” (ECF No. 12 at 2 (citation omitted).)
initial matter, the court agrees with Petitioners that the
consideration of three of their Motions should proceed with
the filing date of February 25, 2019. David Quinto previously
represented Bill Aho, Dalton Wright, and Harmon Ventures LLC
with respect to the subpoenas. Mr. Quinto previously filed an
Electronic Case Filing Registration Form in connection with
his Motion for pro hac vice admission in a separate case.
(See 2:14-cv-160, ECF No. 149-2.) Judge Nuffer
granted David Quinto's Motion. (See 2:14-cv-160,
ECF No. 152.) The court is satisfied that David Quinto is a
“registered user” of this district's
electronic filing system. The agrees with Petitioners that
David Quinto was effectively served. Consideration of
Petitioners' three Motions shall proceed with the filing
date of February 25, 2019.
district, if a party files a short form discovery motion,
“[t]he opposing party must file its response five
business days after the filing of the Motion . . . .”
DUCivR 37-1(a)(6). Mr. Aho filed his Response on March 4,
which is five business days after the filing of
Petitioner's Motions. “To resolve the dispute, the
court may . . . set a hearing, telephonic or otherwise . . .
and . . . request further briefing and set a briefing
schedule.” DUCivR 37-1(a)(7)(B-C).
court orders the following:
I. Petitioners shall file Replies to Respondents'
Responses (ECF Nos. 11-14) on or before March 6, 2019.
II. The court sets a hearing on four of Petitioners'
Motions, (ECF Nos. 2-5) for March 7, 2019 at 3:00 ...