Montgomery moves to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant issued on March 29, 2012, by Magistrate Judge David Grand, which authorized the release of electronic records and e-mails from Yahoo! Inc. Montgomery argues that because the warrant authorized the search of records in Sunnyvale, California, where Yahoo! Inc. is headquartered, and that because “a Magistrate Judge does not have the authority to issue search warrants of premises in district [sic] other than his own district,” the search was invalid. First Mot. to Suppress at 2, ECF No. 53.

The Stored Communications Act, in 18 U.S.C. § 2703(b)(1)(A), authorizes any court of competent jurisdiction to issue a search warrant for the disclosure of electronic records. And a “court of competent jurisdiction” for the purposes of the Act specifically includes “any district court of the United States (including a magistrate judge of such a court) or any United States court of appeals that ... has jurisdiction over the offense being investigated.” 18 U.S.C.§ 2711(3)(A)(I). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and its magistrate judges, has jurisdiction over the offense being investigated, and, therefore, is a court of competent jurisdiction to issue a warrant to search electronic records. See generally United States v. Sierra-Rodriguez, 10-20338, 2012 WL 1199599 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 10, 2012) (examining probable cause basis for search warrant, without questioning the jurisdiction of court to issue a search warrant for California electronic record holder). The Court will deny the motion.

Montgomery next seeks to suppress a telephone recording obtained by a wiretap, identified as “Montgomery Consensual Call,” on the grounds the government failed to disclose the existence of the wiretap recording in its June 12, 2012 discovery notice and documents. Second Mot. to Suppress at 1, ECF No. 55.

In its response, the government states it has no intention of introducing the wiretap recording in its case-in-chief. The government also notes that the existence of the wiretap recording is not being withheld from Montgomery, and that the government provided a copy to him. Resp. to Second Mot. to Suppress at 1, ECF No. 67. As evidenced by the fact he is making this motion with knowledge of the recording, Montgomery is aware of the existence of the recording. Likewise, Montgomery has had, at this point, several months to examine the recording. The Court finds suppression would be inappropriate for, at most, negligible prejudice to Montgomery. See United States v. Maples, 60 F.3d 244, 247 (6th Cir. 1995) (abuse of discretion to suppress evidence as sanction for violation of discovery order when evidence was nevertheless disclosed to defendant weeks before trial). The Court will deny the motion.

*2 Montgomery next seeks to have count one of the indictment, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, dismissed on the grounds of double jeopardy. Montgomery states he was first charged for this offense by a complaint on October 26, 2011, in case no. 11-30566, and that this case was dismissed without prejudice on December 14, 2011. Mot. to Dismiss at 2, ECF No. 57. Montgomery notes there is an apparent inconsistency in the reasons for the dismissal, pointing out the motion to dismiss filed in the case states the government required more time to investigate, whereas an e-mail between an Assistant U.S. Attorney and a federal agent states the government sought dismissal because it could not prosecute Montgomery for a felony proceeding by information alone. Id.

Regardless of the government's reasons for dismissing the complaint, Montgomery's double jeopardy argument fails. The Fifth Amendment states “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Constitution. Amend. V. But this clause first requires a person to be placed in jeopardy, which does not occur in a jury trial until after a jury has been empaneled and been sworn in. See United States v. Young, 657 F.3d 408, 416 (6th Cir. 2011) cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1647 (2012) (citing Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 388(1975)). Here, a jury was never sworn or impaneled in this proceeding, and therefore Montgomery was never put in jeopardy for the charged offense. See, e.g., United States v. Toaz, 59 Fed.Appx. 94, 100 (6th Cir. 2003) (no double jeopardy bar when case dismissed before empaneling of a jury). Accordingly, the Court will deny his motion.

Montgomery next seeks to suppress evidence seized under a subpoena issued by Grand Jury No. 11-3-156-3 on August 11, 2011, and verified by the Clerk of the Court of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Montgomery argues a federal grand jury is only permitted to issue subpoenas within the jurisdiction of the district, and because the subpoena in question was issued for the custodian of records of Yahoo! Inc., located in Sunnyvale, California, the subpoena is invalid. Third Mot. to Suppress at 2, ECF No. 65.

Criminal Rule 17, which governs the issuance of subpoenas, including grand jury subpoenas, states that “[a] subpoena requiring a witness to attend a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United States.” Fed R. Crim. P. 17; United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 299 (1991). And “[t]he territorial jurisdiction of a grand jury [to investigate crimes] is generally coextensive with and limited by that of the court.” 38A C.J.S. Grand Juries § 96. Here, as the grand jury sitting within the Eastern District of Michigan issued a subpoena in furtherance of an investigation for criminal activity within the same district, the subpoena was valid. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury 81-2, 550 F. Supp. 24, 27 (W.D. Mich. 1982) (Western District of Michigan grand jury could issue subpoena for bank records in New York). The Court will deny the motion.

In this motion, Montgomery seeks dismissal of the entire indictment due to the government's use in its presentment to the grand jury of “illegally obtained wiretap evidence” in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.539c. Delayed Mot. to Dismiss at 3, ECF No. 76. Montgomery also alleges the wiretap evidence was used to support perjured testimony, but he fails to provide the Court with any evidence to suggest the government submitted information to the grand jury that was, in fact, the product of an illegal wiretap. And Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c, which prohibits eavesdropping on private conversations, exempts eavesdropping pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate. See People v. Patrick, 46 Mich. App. 678, 683 (1973). In any event, the motion was filed on January 7, 2013, several weeks after the deadline to file pretrial motions of November 13, 2012. The Court will strike this motion as improper.

*3 In these three motions, Montgomery seeks expedited consideration of several previous motions. Mots. for Expedited Consideration, ECF Nos. 87, 88, 89. As a threshold matter, the Court –– not any party –– is responsible for managing its docket. In any event, these motions were filed on January 23, 2013, several weeks after the deadline to file pretrial motions of November 13, 2012. The Court will strike these motions as improper.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (docket no. 53), Motion to Suppress Call (docket no. 55), Motion to Dismiss Count One (docket no. 57), and Motion to Suppress Evidence (docket no. 65) are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Delayed Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 76) is STRICKEN as improper.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motions to Expedite Consideration (dockets no. 87, 88, 89) are STRICKEN as improper.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2013.