New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1 - 1474

Filing 89

ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA re 85 Objection filed by Doe 1335. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 12/5/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2011)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7
NEW SENSATIONS, INC.,

No. C 11-2770 MEJ

8
Plaintiff,
9

v.

10

DOES 1-1,474,

Docket No. 85
Defendants.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH (DOE DEFENDANT #1335)

_____________________________________/
13
14

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against 1,474

15

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

16

Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Big Bang Theory: A XXX Parody”), using an internet peer-to-peer file

17

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

18

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

19

Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 13. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve

20

subpoenas on Does 1-1,474’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil

21

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

22

the name, address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-1,474. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs

23

provided Does 1-1,474 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-1,474 30 days from

24

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

25

modify the subpoena). Id.

26

Now before the Court is an Objection filed by a Doe Defendant.1 Dkt. No. 85. In his filing,

27
28

1

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge has jurisdiction to hear and decide
nondispositive matters without the consent of the parties. A motion to quash is normally considered

1

the Doe Defendant provides no basis for his objection, merely arguing that he “believe[s] I did no

2

wrong doing in this matter.”

3

Under Rule 45(c)(3), a court must modify or quash a subpoena that, inter alia, “requires

4

disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies, or subjects a

5

person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A). A court may modify or quash a subpoena

6

that, inter alia, requires disclosing confidential information. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(B). As the Doe

7

Defendant has provided no argument in support of his objection, the Court is unable to determine

8

whether any protection under Rule 45(c)(3) should be afforded. Accordingly, the Doe Defendant’s

9

Motion to Quash is DENIED.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
Dated: December 5, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

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

a non-dispositive matter, Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2010), and
therefore, the undersigned has jurisdiction to rule on the Defendant’s motion(s) to the extent they
seek to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena. In addition, a magistrate judge has jurisdiction to consider the
question of whether joinder of unserved defendants is proper, including whether unserved
defendants should be severed and dismissed from the action, because defendants who have not been
served are not considered “parties” under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532
(5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prison inmate’s action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants had not been
served yet and therefore were not parties); see also United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1212,
1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to enter default judgment in an
in rem forfeiture action even though property owner had not consented to it because 28 U.S.C. §
636(c)(1) only requires the consent of the parties and the property owner, having failed to comply
with the applicable filing requirements, was not a party). Here, Plaintiff has consented to magistrate
jurisdiction and the Doe Defendants have not yet been served. Therefore, the Court finds that it has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to decide the issues raised in the instant motion(s).
2