TCYK, LLC v. John Does 1-14
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
) Case No.: 13-cv-298
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:
(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
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE