IO Group, Inc. v. Antelope Media, LLC

Filing 32

ORDER FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EARLY DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 22, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

GILL SPERLEIN (172887) THE LAW FIRM OF GILL SPERLEIN 584 Castro Street, Suite 879 San Francisco, California 94114 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorney for Plaintiff IO GROUP, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ANTELOPE MEDIA, LLC, an Arizonian ) limited liability company, and DOES 1 through ) 5 inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) IO GROUP, INC. d/b/a TITAN MEDIA, a California corporation, CASE NO.: C-08-4050 (MMC) [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EARLY DISCOVERY No Hearing

[PROPOSED] ORDER Having considered Plaintiff's Miscellaneous Administrative Request Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26 Conference and finding good cause therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that plaintiff is granted leave to take early discovery. Plaintiff may immediately serve on Defendant Antelope Media, LLC Interrogatories in substantially the same form as those attached to Plaintiff's Supplemental Miscellaneous Administrative Request for Leave to Take Early Discovery at Exhibit B.

-1[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EARLY DISCOVERY C-08-4050 (MMC)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that upon obtaining Internet protocol addresses from Defendant Antelope media, LLC, plaintiff may serve on Internet access providers subpoenas to obtain subscriber information for subscribers assigned ip addresses provided by Antelope Media, LLC. Such subpoenas should be substantially in the same form as the example attached to plaintiff's Miscellaneous Administrative Request for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26 Conference as Exhibit A; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that if any Internet access provider served with a subpoena in accordance with this Order identifies a downstream access provider rather than an individual subscriber, plaintiff may serve on the downstream provider(s) such additional subpoenas as necessary in order to identify the individual subscriber assigned the ip address on the date and time in question; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that subpoenas authorized by this order and issued pursuant thereto shall be deemed appropriate court orders under 47 U.S.C. §551; twenty-one (21) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Internet access providers shall have fourteen (14) days from the date they are served a subpoena and a copy of this order to respond to the subpoena in order that such provider shall have sufficient time to provide notice to the subscriber whose subscriber information plaintiff seeks to obtain thereby; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that good faith attempts by Internet service providers to notify the subscribers shall constitute compliance with this order.

January 22, 2009 Dated:____________________

______________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EARLY DISCOVERY C-08-4050 (MMC)