TCYK, LLC v. John Does 1-14

Filing 8

ORDER on Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 5/14/2013. (arw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN TCYK,LLC, Plaintiff, ) ) ) Case No.: 13-cv-298 ) ) ) v. DOES 1-14, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE TIIIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS PRIOR TO A RULE 26(0 CONFERENCE THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule' 26(f) Conference (the HMotion"), and the Court being duly advised in the prelnises does hereby: FIND, ORDER AND ADJUDGE: I. Plaintiff established that "good cause" exists for it to serve third party subpoenas on the Internet Service Providers listed on Exhibit A to the Motion (the "ISPs"). See IDvlG Recording, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 4104214, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008); and AristaRecordsLLC v. Does 1-19,551 F. Supp. 2d 1,6-7 (D.D.C. 2008). 2. Plaintiff lllay serve each of the ISPs with a Rule 45 subpoena comtnanding each ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and Media Access Control ("MAC") address of the Defendant to whom the ISP assigned an IP address as set forth on Exhibit A to the Motion. Plaintiff shall attach to any such subpoena a copy oftbis Order. 3. Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the same manner as above on any service provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of internet services to one of the Defendants. 4. Each of the ISPs that qualify as a "cable operator," as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), which states: the term "cable operator'" nleans any person or group of persons (A) who provides cable service over a cable systenl and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable systeul, or (B) \Jlho otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any anangelnent, the Inanageluent and operation of such a cable systeln shall cOlnply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which states: A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying] infonnation if the disclosure is ... made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the order is directed. by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant. 5. The subpoenaed ISPs shall not require Plaintiff to pay a fee in advance of providing the subpoenaed illfonnation; nor shall the subpoenaed ISPs require Plaintiff to pay a fee for an IP address that is not controlled by such ISP, or for duplicate IP addresses that resolve to the Salne individual, or for an IP address that does not provide the nanle of a unique individual, or for the ISP's internal costs to notify its custolners. Ifnecessmy,the Court shall resolve any disputes between the ISPs and Plaintiff regarding the reasonableness of the al110U11t proposed to be charged by the ISP after the subpoenaed infonnation is provided to Plaintiff. 6. If any particular Doe Defendant has been voluntarily dislnissed then any motion filed by said Defendant objecting to the disclosure of his or her identifying infonnation is hereby denied as moot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the applicable ISP shall withhold the moving Defendant's identifYing illfoullation fio1l1 Plaintiff unless and until Plaintiff obtains a subsequent court order authorizing the disclosure. DONE AND ORDERED this I 't'ray of mY ,2013. BYr1rtL-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE J't.1()/.r~