Guice v. Federal Trade Commission ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GREGORY GUICE,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 20-mc-86 (CKK)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(April 9, 2021)
In December 2018, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) secured an order from District
Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the Middle District of Florida, enjoining Mr. Kevin Guice from
participating in telemarketing activities. See Order & Permanent Injunction, ECF No. 3-1, at 40–
41. Judge Mendoza’s order also permits the FTC to monitor Mr. Guice’s compliance therewith,
including through the use of depositions and subpoenas. See id. at 50–51. While monitoring Mr.
Guice’s subsequent compliance with Judge Mendoza’s order, the FTC found cause to believe that
Mr. Guice was participating in additional telemarketing activities and using his immediate family’s
PayPal accounts to funnel money from these activities back to himself. See FTC Opp’n, ECF No.
3, at 2–5.
Accordingly, on August 17, 2020, the FTC issued a subpoena to PayPal Holding, Inc.
(“PayPal”) requesting the production of financial records related to Mr. Kevin Guice. See FTC
Subpoena, ECF No. 3-2, at 1. PayPal is located in San Jose, California, and the FTC’s subpoena
requests that PayPal produce responsive documents to the FTC’s San Francisco office in the
Northern District of California. See id. Among other things, the FTC’s subpoena requests
production of PayPal records relating to Mr. Guice’s brother, Mr. Gregory Guice. See FTC Opp’n,
ECF No. 3, at 5. In turn, Mr. Gregory Guice has now filed with this Court a motion to quash the
1
FTC’s third-party subpoena of PayPal and to enter a related protective order shielding his PayPal
account from the FTC’s subpoena. The FTC opposes Mr. Gregory Guice’s motions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) states that motions to quash or modify a subpoena
must be filed with “the court for the district where compliance is required.” The Advisory
Committee notes to the rule further explain that “subpoena-related motions and applications are to
be made to the court where compliance is required. . . . ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Advisory Committee’s
Notes on 2013 amendments; see also United States v. Preston, No. CV 13-00265 (RC), 2015 WL
13708609, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2015) (explaining that a motion addressing subpoena
compliance must be filed in the district where compliance will occur). Here, Mr. Gregory Guice
seeks to quash a subpoena requesting that PayPal produce records to the FTC in San Francisco,
California. See FTC Subpoena, ECF No. 3-2, at 1. Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3), Mr. Gregory Guice
must, therefore, file any motions to quash or modify this subpoena within the North District of
California, the judicial district comprising San Francisco, California and “where compliance is
required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). Consequently, this Court does not have jurisdiction to
adjudicate Mr. Gregory Guice’s motion to quash, or his related request for a protective order. The
Court will, therefore, DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Gregory Guice’s [1] Motion to Quash
and [2] Motion for Protective Order.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: April 9, 2021
/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
2