Grow Universe Inc. d/b/a Cafe Melo v. Doe
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-01861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Grow Universe v. Doe, Judge Woods extended the anonymous individual’s deadline to challenge Spectrum’s subpoena and delayed disclosure pending that challenge.
The anonymous individual associated with the internet address, Spectrum, and Grow Universe d/b/a Café Melo are affected. The individual received additional time to seek to quash the subpoena, and Spectrum’s disclosure was delayed for information covered by that motion.
What happened
Grow Universe d/b/a Café Melo v. Doe concerns a subpoena sent to Charter Communications d/b/a Spectrum seeking information linked to an individual’s internet address. The individual, who recently obtained a lawyer, objected because the subpoena seeks personal information and asked to remain anonymous.
The individual asked for until August 29, 2025, to file a motion to quash, meaning a request to cancel or limit the subpoena. The individual also asked Spectrum not to disclose the information while that request was pending.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the request for additional time. The motion to quash is due August 29, opposition is due September 12, and reply is due September 19. Spectrum does not have to provide the information targeted by the motion until one week after the court resolves it. The court also said the individual’s papers should address whether the individual has standing, or the legal right to challenge the subpoena, and noted that anonymity is generally an exception rather than the rule.
The detailed version
- Grow Universe Inc. d/b/a Cafe Melo v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01861
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 19, 2025
Background
An individual learned from Charter Communications d/b/a Spectrum that Spectrum had received a subpoena and court order requiring it to disclose information associated with the individual’s internet address. The individual’s law firm stated that the subpoena sought personal information and that the individual wished to remain anonymous at that time. Spectrum had advised that it would produce the requested information absent an objection.
Request
The individual submitted a formal objection to the third-party subpoena and requested additional time to file a motion to quash. A motion to quash is a request asking the court to cancel or limit a subpoena. The requested filing deadline was August 29, 2025, based on the late time at which the law firm was retained.
Ruling
The court granted the request for additional time. The anticipated motion to quash is due no later than August 29, 2025; any opposition is due no later than September 12, 2025; and any reply is due no later than September 19, 2025. Spectrum need not provide information that is the subject of the motion to quash until one week after the court resolves that motion.
The court stated that the individual’s papers should address standing, meaning whether the individual has the legal right to challenge the subpoena. The court also said that people seeking to proceed anonymously should understand that anonymity is the exception rather than the rule. The opinion does not decide the motion to quash itself or whether the individual ultimately may proceed anonymously.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.