United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Paul Boyne (“movant”) has filed a motion to
compel [Doc. #11] and an application for subpoena [Doc. #12].
The government has filed a memorandum in opposition to both
of the movant's filings. [Doc. #15]. For the reasons set
forth below, the movant's motion to compel [Doc.
#11] and application for subpoena [Doc.
#12] are DENIED.
10, 2016, at the request of the government, the Clerk of
Court issued a Subpoena to Testify Before a Grand Jury to
Twitter, Inc. See Doc. #1 at 3. In connection with that
subpoena, the government submitted an application for a
nondisclosure order, which would prohibit Twitter, Inc. from
disclosing the existence of the subpoena for sixty days. See
Id. at 1-2. Judge Joan G. Margolis granted the
government's application for a non-disclosure order on
June 10, 2016. See Doc. #2.
12, 2017, the movant filed two motions to unseal this case.
[Doc. ##3, 4]. In addition to seeking the unsealing of this
matter, the motions also sought to, inter alia,
“[u]nseal, make public ALL cases/filings related to FBI
case #9E-NH-7274619” and to “[s]ubpoena and make
public all files related to FBI/Fusion Center Case
#9E-NH-7274619.” Doc. ##3, 4 at 7. The government filed
a response to these motions on July 18, 2017, and stated no
objection to the unsealing of this specific case. See Doc. #6
19, 2017, Judge Margolis granted the movant's motions to
unseal this case, absent objection. See Doc. ##7, 8. Judge
Margolis later clarified in an endorsement order issued on
August 23, 2017, that although the movant's motions had
been granted as to the unsealing of the case, the motions
were “denied in all other respects regarding all other
requests in his motions.” Doc. #14 (emphasis in
movant now seeks to compel disclosure of the FBI New Haven
case file 9E-NH-7274619, which he previously requested be
made public in his motions to unseal this case. See Doc. #11
at 1. Similarly, the movant's application for subpoena
seeks the issuance of a subpoena “for the production of
the unredacted FBI case file #9E-NH-7274619.” Doc. #12
movant's requests for the disclosure of the referenced
FBI file are procedurally defective and not properly brought
in the context of this miscellaneous case for several
the movant's application for subpoena is made pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. See Doc. #12-1. The
movant is not a “party” to this
case. Rule 45 provides: “The clerk must
issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a
party who requests it.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
45(a)(3) (emphasis added). The movant is not named as a party
in the instant matter and appears only as a non-party movant.
Therefore, under the plain language of Rule 45, the movant, a
non-party, cannot request the issuance of a subpoena in this
the movant has no basis to file a motion to compel under the
Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure because he is a
not a party to this case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1)
(“[A] party may move for an order
compelling disclosure or discovery.” (emphasis added));
see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2) (rule governing discovery
and inspection in criminal cases which specifically
identifies the disclosure requirements of the government to a
the movant's motion to compel is not properly before the
Court and provides no cause for ordering the disclosure of
the referenced FBI case file. Here, the movant appears to
allege a violation of his constitutional rights, as each of
the movant's filings reference constitutional violations.
See, e.g., Doc. ##3, 4, 11, 12, 13. The movant's prior
motions to unseal this case specifically cite to 42 U.S.C.
§1983, which governs civil actions for deprivation of
rights, and reference an “illegal search
warrant.” See Doc. ##3, 4 at 1, 5. To the extent the
movant believes that his constitutional rights have been
violated, the proper means by which to address any such
alleged violation is by bringing a separate civil lawsuit.
The movant has not done so. The motion to compel appears to
seek information which would relate to the movant's
allegations that his constitutional rights have been
violated. See Doc. #11 at 1-2. The motion to compel has no
basis in, or relation to, this specific matter.
the movant's motion to compel [Doc. #11]
and application for subpoena [Doc. #12] are