Snoopy, has it been established that the subpoena served to BlueHost was defective? If so, it is even more awful that BlueHost's legal department didn't check that out and deal with the subpoena in the proper manner, as Calvin did. I understand that at least the first subpoena that the 3abn atty served Calvin was defective, but I didn't hear the same for the BlueHost one.
Both subpoenas were identical in the problems they had. Both didn't list a case number. Both didn't say "District of Massachusetts" under where the case number should have been, and instead said "District of Utah" or "District of Nebraska" in that spot. Both also called for production on the 17th, leaving the recipients perhaps a week or less to comply.
Jerrie Hayes had multiple times brought up that I had issued subpoenas from the wrong district. Thus her issuing subpoenas without case numbers and without "District of Massachusetts" on it were of particular interest to me, but whether a court would have felt her subpoenas consequently did not have to be complied with, I do not know. But probably if BlueHost had noticed the problem and made an issue of it, she would have reissued it, is my guess.