Raw Films, Ltd. v. John Does 2-9

Filing 13

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 7 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/7/12.(mjgsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00909-REB-MEH
RAW FILMS, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES 1-9,
Defendants.

ORDER

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a
Rule 26(f) Conference and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [filed April 8, 2012; docket #7].
Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff’s motion alleges that the Doe Defendants, identified only by their Internet Protocol
(“IP”) addresses, have infringed on Plaintiff’s copyrighted work by using the internet and a
“BitTorrent” protocol to reproduce, distribute, display, or perform Plaintiff’s protected film.
Plaintiff requests permission from the Court to serve limited, immediate discovery on the Doe
Defendants’ Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. The purpose of
this discovery is to obtain additional information concerning the identities of the Doe Defendants.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) proscribes seeking discovery before Rule 26(f) conferral. However,
this prohibition is not absolute; the Court may authorize discovery upon a showing of good cause.
Pod-Ners, LLC v. Northern Feed & Bean of Lucerne Ltd. Liability Co., 204 F.R.D. 675, 676 (D.
Colo. 2002). “Expedited discovery should be limited, however, and narrowly tailored to seek

information necessary to support expedited or preliminary relief.” Avaya, Inc. v. Acumen Telecom
Corp., No. 10-cv-03075-CMA-BNB , 2011 WL 9293, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 3, 2011) (citation
omitted).
After review of the motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff establishes good cause for limited
expedited discovery. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior
to a Rule 26(f) Conference and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [filed April 8, 2012; docket #67]
is granted in part as follows. The Plaintiff may serve third party subpoenas pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 45 on the identified ISPs with the limited purpose of ascertaining the identities of the Doe
Defendants as identified by the nine (9) IP addresses listed in Docket #7-4. The subpoenas shall be
limited to providing Plaintiff with the true name, address, telephone number, email address, and
Media Access Control address of the Defendant to whom the ISP has assigned an IP address. With
each subpoena, Plaintiff shall also serve a copy of this Order. Finally, the Court emphasizes that
Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to the subpoenas for the purpose of
protecting and enforcing its rights as set forth in its Complaint [docket #1]. The Court cautions
Plaintiff that improper use of this information may result in sanctions. All other relief requested in
the proposed order [docket #7-1] is denied.1

1

Plaintiff’s proposed order asserts, among other statements, a finding that joinder is
proper at this stage in the litigation. (Docket #7-1 at 3.) Although Plaintiff has not yet filed a
Notice of Case Association, the Court recognizes particular similarity between the present
motion and motions filed by the same counsel in cases 12-cv-00409-REB-MEH [docket #7] and
12-cv-00397-WJM-MEH [docket #6]. At a hearing held in the above cases, Plaintiff’s counsel
conceded on the record that other courts have disputed the propriety of joinder in cases similar to
this one. Thus, the Court expressly declines to make any statement regarding joinder at this
time.
2

Entered and dated at Denver, Colorado, this 7th day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

3