Ariz. Court Should Decide Motion to Quash Subpoenas, Says Phone Reseller

If GlobalguruTech (GGT) and owner Jakob Zahara had filed their motion to quash in Georgia, “the court there would have dismissed it,” said defendants’ reply in support of their motion to quash Xfinity Mobile’s subpoenas to UPS and payment services PayPal and Zelle, said their Monday filing (docket 2:22-cv-01950) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. Xfinity alleges the phone reseller is involved in the unlawful business practices of buying and selling handsets under the Xfinity Mobile brand. GGT moved the court last month to quash Xfinity’s subpoenas to the three companies. In its response to the motion, Xfinity said the motion was improper because defendants don’t have standing to object to the carrier’s subpoenas since they’re directed to third parties, not to the defendants (see 2307310037), and a motion to quash must be filed in the place where compliance is required, which is the Northern District of Georgia, not the district of Arizona. In its Monday reply, GGT cited Malibu Media v. Doe, saying the Georgia court would have dismissed the motion to quash, but plaintiffs cited Venus Medical v. Skin Cancer & Cosmetic Dermatology Center, a case that favors GGT, it said. In Venus, the U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia issued two subpoenas to nonparties in Arizona; when those parties failed to comply, Venus filed a motion to hold them in contempt in Arizona, said GGT. The Arizona court transferred the motion back to the Georgia court, which issued the subpoena, saying that court was more familiar with the issues, history of discovery, the relevance of documents sought by Venus and whether permitting an additional forensic search of computers was necessary, GGT said. “The same rationale would apply in this case,” said the defendant, saying the Arizona court is more familiar with the issues in this case, the history of discovery and the relevance of the documents sought by the plaintiffs. The Arizona court can, and should, decide the motion to quash subpoenas, it said.