BCB v. MineOne – opposition to motion to quash JWJ subpoena
Company: TeraWulf
The claim, verbatim
MineOne argues that BCB's motion to quash its subpoena to JWJ Technology should be denied for three reasons: BCB lacks standing, BCB failed to meet and confer, and JWJ accepted service and stands ready to comply. MineOne also characterizes the motion as bad-faith motion practice.
Source (primary)
BCB Cheyenne LLC v. MineOne Wyoming Data Center LLC — Entry #384: OPPOSITION to 368 Motion to Quash filed by Defendants MineOne Partners LLC, MineOne Wyoming Data Center LLC, Terra Crypto Inc (RECAP, court_filing)
View cached copy (2026-10-05)Live source ↗
Quote: “JWJ did not serve objections to the subpoena or move to quash it. JWJ stands ready to comply with the Subpoena. The Motion should be denied in its entirety.”
How we checked this
Checked on October 12, 2026. The cited source supports part of this claim, but not all of it.
MineOne does argue lack of standing and failure to confer, and it calls the motion bad faith. However, its third argument is that there is no substantive basis to quash. JWJ's readiness to comply is a supporting point, not the stated third reason.
Confirmed in the source:
- MineOne argues that BCB's motion to quash the JWJ subpoena should be denied
- MineOne argues that BCB lacks standing to challenge a subpoena to a nonparty
- MineOne argues that BCB failed to meet and confer as Local Rule 7.1(b)(1)(A) requires
- MineOne states that JWJ accepted service, did not object or move to quash, and stands ready to comply
- MineOne characterizes BCB's motion as bad-faith, frivolous motion practice
We could not confirm this from the cited source:
- The brief does not present JWJ's acceptance of service and readiness to comply as one of three grounds for denial; its third ground is that there is no substantive basis to quash, based on the placeholder compliance date, BCB's unclean hands, and Rule 45's reasonable-time standard
That does not mean it is false — only that this source does not establish it, as of the date above. If we find a source that settles it, we will re-check and update this page.
What we did: Read our cached copy of RECAP (https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.wyd.63456/gov.uscourts.wyd.63456.384.0.pdf) in full (14,687 characters, retrieved October 5, 2026) and checked each assertion in the claim against it.
Additional evidence
confirms BCB Cheyenne LLC v. MineOne Wyoming Data Center LLC — Entry #384: OPPOSITION to 368 Motion to Quash filed by Defendants MineOne Partners LLC, MineOne Wyoming Data Center LLC, Terra Crypto Inc
Quote: “JWJ did not serve objections to the subpoena or move to quash it. JWJ stands ready to comply with the Subpoena. The Motion should be denied in its entirety.”