Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
NON.PARTY PAUL HANSMEIER'S OPPOSITION TO RAJESH PATEL'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR CONTEMPT

NON.PARTY PAUL HANSMEIER'S OPPOSITION TO RAJESH PATEL'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR CONTEMPT

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 150|Likes:
Published by simality
The usual blah blah blah blah blah
The usual blah blah blah blah blah

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: simality on Sep 25, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/25/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICTCOURT
DISTRICT
OF
MINNESOTA
AF HOLDINGS
LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
RAJESH
PATEL,
Defendant.
No. :
0:
1
3
-mc-000t-_,1fiefl
{4b}f*'
iu
ssi
t
''-1*
cou's
.
,rqD\SlTl;
N\tl
cLERh\;t:i'EPr?uL-r"'
CASE
NON.PARTYPAULHANSMEIER'S
OPPOSITION
TO
RAJESH
PATEL'SMOTION
TO COMPELAND
FOR
CONTEMPT
Paul
Hansmeier
("Respondent"),
a
non-party
to
the actionpending
in
the United
States
District
Court
for
the
Northern
Districtof
Georgia,
opposes
the
Motionto
Compel
and
for
Civil
Contempt
("Contempt
Motion")
that was
filed
against
him
by
Movant,
RajeshPatel.The Contempt
Motion
is
patently
frivolous,
conrpletely
unnecessaryand
isbeingprosecuted
in
bad
faith.
As
discussed
below,Movant's
motion
is
based
entirely
onRespondent'sallegednon-compliance
with
a
subpoena
thatwasnever
properly
served
on
him.Thus,
atthe
outset,
thereis
nothingthat
Respondent
couldpossibly
in
contemptof.Further,
thereis
noCourtorderdirected
to
Respondent
in
thisproceeding.
Additionally,
even
consideringthat
Movant
is
alleging
non-compliance
with
a
subpoena,
there
is
still
no
basis
for
contempt.
Assuming
that
Respondent
wasproperly
served
the
subpoena-andhe
was
not-the
information
sought
in
the
subpoena
is
the
subject
of
a
motion
for a
protectiveorder
that
is
currentlypending
in
the
Northern
sEP
2
4
201
CASE 0:13-mc-00068-JNE-FLN Document 11 Filed 09/24/13 Page 1 of 12
 
District
of
Georgiar;there, the
district
court
has
indicated
that
it
intends
to
set
a hearing
on
the
outstanding
motion
for
a
protectiveorder, along
with
other
discovery-related
motions.2
According
to
Movant,
several
non-party
subpoena
recipients,
including
Respondent,are
awaiting
the
district court's
ruling
onthe
protective
order
motion.3 These
non-parties
include Internet
Service Providers,
major Internet
companiesand
other
non-
parties
who
are concerned
with
contravening
thedistrict court's
expressed
intention
todecide
the
outstanding
discovery
disputes. Respondent explained
all
of
this
to
Movant's
counsel.
See
Exhibit
A.
Finally,
Respondent
has reason
to
believe
that
Movant's
counsel
isacting
in
bad-
faith.
Specifically, theNorthern
District
of
Georgiaenjoined
Movantfrom
filing
future
motions
without
first
obtaining
leave
of
thecourt.
In
apost-injunction
filing,
Movant
acknowledged that
"an
issue exists
as
towhether
filing
motions
to
compel
in
non-Georgia
jurisdictions
violates
the
Courts
[sic]
ECF
#
83
Order
barring
filing
"motions"
and
"responses."'4
Yet,
Movant
has
proceeded
to
prosecute
the
instant
Contempt
Motionwithout
informing
theCourt
of
these
very legitimate
concems.
Movant's
counsel has ignored
the
need
to
simply wait
until
the
Northern
District
of
Georgia rules onthepending
motion
for
a
protectiveorder.
He
is
acting
in
potential
I
See
AF Holdings,
LLC
v.
Rajesh
Patel,No.
2:12-cv-00262-WCO
(N.D.
Ga.
Aug.26,
2013)
at
ECF
No.
68.
'
Id.
atECF
No.
82.
3
Id.
utECF
No.
84.
o
Id.
atECF
No.
84.
CASE 0:13-mc-00068-JNE-FLN Document 11 Filed 09/24/13 Page 2 of 12
 
violation
of
an
order
of
the
Northem
District
of
Georgiaand,
by
doing
so, has added
tothe
expenses
of
a
non-party
and
hisownclient,
and
unnecessarilyoccupied
this
Court'stime.Accordingly,
the
Court
should award
Respondent
his
feesand
expenses
in
opposing
Movant's
Motion
and deny
theContempt
Motion
as
premature
andbaseless.
BACKGROI]ND
Respondentwas
"served"
with
a
subpoena duces
tecum
during
a court
hearing
on
August
5,2AI3.
Because
attorneys and
litigants
who
come before
thecourt
areimmune
from
service
of
process
in
othersuits,
service
of
the
subpoena
was
defective.Nevertheless,
because
Movant
would
ostensibly
just
re-serve
the
subpoena, and
because
Respondent
didnot
possess
a
meaningfulquantity
of
responsivedocuments,
Respondent
intended
to
voluntarilycomply
with
the
document request
to
the extentallowed
by
the
attorney-clientprivilege.
The
subpoenaserved
on
Respondertthad a
compliance
deadline
of
August 20,2013,
but
Respondentwas
unable
to
comply
by
that
date due
tohis having
been
on
vacation
the
prior
week.
Further,
Respondent
inadvertently
calendared
thesubpoena
deadline
for August
30.
On August
22,2073,
Respondent
was contacted
by
attorney
Blair
Chintella,whoenquired
about
Respondent'scompliance. See
Exhibit
A.
Respondent
informed
Mr.
Chintella
that
his
calendar
indicateda
response
deadline
of
August30,
and asked
Mr.Chintella
if
he
was mistaken.
Id. Mr.
Chintella
confessed
that
he
was unsure
of
what
the
response
deadline
was,
and indicated
that
Respondent
could
have
until
the
30th
to
respond.ld.
CASE 0:13-mc-00068-JNE-FLN Document 11 Filed 09/24/13 Page 3 of 12

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->