Payne v. United States of America Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:25-mc-00068-SKC-SBP
CPT JARQUEZ M. PAYN,
Movant,
v.
United States of America, Department of Defense, and Office of the Inspector General,
Respondents.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING SERVICE
Susan Prose, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the court on Movant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 1),
filed August 13, 2025, and Emergency Motion for Stay of Use of Produced Data and Request for
Sanctions (ECF No. 5), filed August 28, 2025. These motions were referred to the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge by the Honorable S. Kato Crews. ECF Nos. 7, 8.
Having reviewed the docket, the court identifies a threshold procedural issue that must be
resolved before addressing the merits of the motions.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3), relief from a subpoena is sought by
motion. However, Movant has not demonstrated that the motions have been served on the
subpoenaing party. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a)(1)(D) requires that a written motion be
served on every party. The docket reflects no appearance by Respondent and no indication that
Respondent has received notice of the motions.
Because the relief requested would operate against Respondent, the court cannot grant
such relief absent a showing that Respondent has been provided notice and an opportunity to
respond.
Case No. 1:25-mc-00068-SKC-SBP Document 10 filed 03/26/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

2
Accordingly, it is ORDERED1 that:
1. 	On or before April 9, 2026, Movant shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why the
pending motions should not be denied without prejudice for failure to demonstrate
service, and shall file a supplemental certificate of service demonstrating that
Respondent has been served with ECF Nos. 1 and 5;
2. 	Movant may, in lieu of filing a supplemental certificate of service, file a request for
assistance with service by the Clerk; and
3. 	Failure to comply with this Order will result in denial of the pending motions without
prejudice and without further notice.
DATED: March 26, 2026 	BY THE COURT:
______________________________
Susan Prose
United States Magistrate Judge
1 Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that within fourteen (14) days after
service of a Magistrate Judge’s order or recommendation, any party may serve and file written
objections with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), (b). Failure to make any such objection
will result in a waiver of the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s order or recommendation. See
Sinclair Wyo. Ref. Co. v. A & B Builders, Ltd., 989 F.3d 747, 783 (10th Cir. 2021) (firm waiver
rule applies to non-dispositive orders); but see Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119,
1122 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule does not apply when the interests of justice require
review, including when a “pro se litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting
and the consequences of failing to object”).
Case No. 1:25-mc-00068-SKC-SBP Document 10 filed 03/26/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2