IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 23, 2008
ANONYMOUS POSTER ON YAHOO!, A/K/A "FREE3WARREN", MOVANT,
PROSPECT CAPITAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Illston United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND DENYING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS
Movant "Free3warren" has filed a motion to quash a subpoena as well as a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the July 25, 2008 hearing. Having considered the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to quash subpoena and DENIES the motion for fees and costs. On April 16, 2008, respondent Prospect Capital Corporation issued a subpoena to Yahoo to access information about Yahoo Message Board users, including "Free3warren." After Yahoo 21 notified Free3warren of the subpoena, Free3warren filed the instant motion to quash the subpoena. Prospect failed to file an opposition by the deadline, and Free3warren filed a timely reply brief. On July 16, 2008, Free3warren submitted a supplemental brief stating, inter alia, that Free3warren has also moved to quash a subpoena issued by Prospect in New York to a New York cable provider; that subpoena also seeks information about Free3warren, including Free3warren's identity.
On July 17, 2008, Prospect filed an untimely opposition to the motion to quash, along with a motion for extension of time to file its response, and if necessary to reschedule the July 25, 2008 hearing. Free3warren opposed the motion for extension. Because Prospect did not provide any good cause for the failure to file a timely opposition, the Court denied Prospect's motion and will not consider the untimely opposition. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to quash subpoena by default. The award of fees and costs is a matter within the Court's sound discretion; since the Court's ruling is not based on an evaluation of the merits of the motion, the Court DENIES the request for fees and costs. (Docket No. 1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.