Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:2009cv00366 - Document 76 (E.D. Tex. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION, and ORDER re 75 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Scope of Discovery in Subpoenas Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum filed by Advanced Voice Recognition Systems Inc. The Court ORDERS the parties to provide by June 3, 2010, supplemental briefing, limited to three substantive pages each, as to whether this motion is properly before the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge John D. Love on 5/26/2010. (gsg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ALLVOICE DEVELOPMENTS US, LLC, § § v. § § MICROSOFT CORPORATION. § NO. 6:09-cv-366 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is third-parties Advance Voice Recognition Systems, Inc. Douglas Holt, Michael K. Davis, and Joseph Miglietta s (collectively, AVRS ) motion for protective order to limit the scope of discovery sought in subpoenas issued and served by Plaintiff Allvoice Developments US, LLC ( Plaintiff ) and Defendant Microsoft Corporation ( Defendant ) (Doc. No. 75). The Court has concerns AVRS s motion is not properly before this Court. See In re Clients and Former Clients of Baron & Budd, P.C., 478 F.3d 670, 671 (5th Cir. 2007) (acknowledging proper court to consider a motion to quash or modify a subpoena is the issuing court rather than the court where the action is pending); Assoc. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Texas Med. Bd., No. 5:07-cv-191, 2008 WL 2944671 at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2008) (denying motion for protective order where subpoena was issued by another court); Avance v. Kerr-McGee Chem. LLC, No. 5:04-cv-209, 2005 WL 5315654, at * 4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2005) (same); see also Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-265, slip op. at 3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2010) (holding motion in abeyance pending further action by issuing court). It may be appropriate for AVRS to withdraw its motion and proceed before the issuing court. Alternatively, the Court ORDERS the parties to provide by June 3, 2010, supplemental briefing, limited to three substantive pages each, as to whether this motion is properly 1 . before the Court. The parties response, reply, and sur-reply deadlines are not affected by this order. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of May, 2010. ___________________________________ JOHN D. LOVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.