From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Sep 10, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Sep. 10, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH

09-10-2012

PATRICK COLLINS, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 1-42, Defendants.


MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on September 10, 2012.

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Quash [filed September 7, 2012; docket #11] filed by an unidentified Doe Defendant (hereinafter "Defendant"). The Motion is denied without prejudice for several reasons. First, Defendant has not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(D) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 5.1G. Rule 5(a)(1)(D) requires that a written motion filed with the Court must be served on every party. Local Rule 5.1G requires, in pertinent part, that "[e]ach paper, other than one filed ex parte, shall be accompanied by a certificate of service indicating the date it was served, the name and address of the person to whom it was sent, and the manner of service." Upon review of Defendant's Motion [docket #11] and Memorandum [docket #13], the Court sees no evidence of service on Plaintiff's counsel.

Second, Plaintiff has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), which states in pertinent part,

Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name - or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, email address, and telephone number.
From the content of the present motion, the Court infers that Defendant seeks to proceed in this litigation anonymously. However, he has failed to seek permission from the Court to do so. See K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-29, 826 F. Supp. 2d 903, 905 (W.D.N.C. 2011) (noting that a party who wishes to proceed anonymously may overcome the presumption against anonymous proceedings by filing a well-reasoned motion to proceed anonymously); see also West Coast Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-5829, 275 F.R.D. 9, 12 (D.D.C. 2011) ("federal courts generally allow parties to proceed anonymously only under certain special circumstances when anonymity is necessary to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment"). Therefore, if Defendant wishes to re-file his motion in accordance with this order and all applicable local and federal court rules, he must first (or contemporaneously) file a motion to proceed anonymously and provide to the Court his name, address, telephone number and email address in accordance with Rule 11(a) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 10.1K. If Defendant wishes to keep his identifying information confidential, Defendant may file his Signature Block separately, and may request that the document be maintained under Restriction Level 2 pursuant to the procedure set forth in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.2. The Court may strike any motion or other filing that deviates from the requirements of this order or from those set forth in the applicable local or federal rules.


Summaries of

Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Sep 10, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Sep. 10, 2012)
Case details for

Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK COLLINS, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 1-42, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Sep 10, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Sep. 10, 2012)