Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2590

Filing 56

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 18 Motion to Quash (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2011)

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 RE: DOE DEFENDANT #2029

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

Re: Docket No. 18
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
28

Now before the Court is a Motion to Quash, filed by Doe Defendant #2029, referred to as
“John Doe.” Dkt. No. 18. In his motion, John Doe requests that the subpoena be quashed because

1

Plaintiff failed to comply with California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1985 and 1985.3.

2

However, Plaintiff has responded to John Doe’s motion, correctly arguing that the California Code

3

of Civil Procedure applies to California courts, and this Court is governed by the Federal Rules of

4

Civil Procedure. As John Doe has failed to file any reply, the motion is DENIED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: November 29, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

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