In Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, a subpoena addressed to Verizon, calling for the identities and addresses of John Doe defendants, was returnable May 12th.
On May 10th the Court stayed enforcement of the subpoena, and directed plaintiff's counsel to immediately notify Verizon of the stay.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, Verizon had responded to the subpoena FIVE (5) DAYS BEFORE THE SUBPOENA'S RETURN DATE, on May 7th.
Plaintiff's "motion for clarification"
[Ed. note. I find this astonishing and quite troubling. If I were the Court I would take serious measures against Verizon for responding to a subpoena prior to its return date, thus preventing judicial review of the subpoena. Verizon has some 'splainin' to do'. I'm also wondering why plaintiff's counsel took ten (10) days to notify the Court of Verizon's misconduct, but perhaps there was a valid reason for that. I don't know. - R.B.]