Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2590

Filing 42

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 22 Motion to Quash (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

Northern District of California

8
9
PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,

No. C 11-2766 MEJ

10
Plaintiff,
v.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DOES 1-2,590,

13

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH (DOE DEFENDANT NO. 2590)

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

Docket No. 22

14
15

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. filed this lawsuit against 2,590 Doe

16

Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to

17

Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Real Female Orgasms 10”), using an internet peer-to-peer file sharing

18

network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322. Compl.

19

¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to

20

Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 12. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve subpoenas

21

on Does 1-2,590’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22

45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including the name,

23

address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs provided

24

Does 1-2,590 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-2,590 30 days from the date

25

of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the

26

subpoena). Id.

27

Now before the Court is a Motion to Quash/Dismiss, filed by Doe Defendant No. 2590. Dkt.

28

No. 22. Pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3), if a subpoena would cause undue burden to Defendant or requires

1

the disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, it must be quashed. The subpoena, however,

2

does not require any obligation from Defendant; rather, it was directed at the putative defendants’

3

ISPs. As such, there is no undue burden. Further, as the subpoena seeks unprivileged contact

4

information for the purpose of identifying Doe Defendants, the Court finds the subpoena necessary

5

for Plaintiff to prosecute its case. Further, Plaintiff raises valid concerns in its response to the

6

present motion, including the conflicting IP Addresses and ISPs named in the motion. Accordingly,

7

Defendant’s motion is denied.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: November 18, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2