Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-27

Filing 21

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 18 Motion to Quash, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/6/2012. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01955-RBJ-MEH
PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES 1-27,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 6, 2012.
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Quash [filed October 31, 2012; docket #18] filed by
Jesus Bertaud (Internet Protocol Address 67.190.90.203; Doe #14). Defendant Bertaud objects to
the disclosure of the information sought the Comcast subpoena; however, Defendant includes his
name, address, and telephone number within the publicly-filed motion. (See docket #18.)
In cases like the present matter where defendants object to the disclosure of identifying
information but publicly provide the information in a motion to quash, courts have found that such
motions may be rendered moot by the disclosure. See First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-500, 276
F.R.D. 241, 248 n.7 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (noting that defendants moving to quash subpoenas served on
their internet service providers for their identifying information “may have very nearly rendered
moot their own motions to quash” by filing the motions under their own names and addresses); see
also Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co. v. Does 1-4, 577, 736 F. Supp. 2d 212, 215
(D.D.C. 2010) (finding that a motion to quash may be moot where a defendant seeking to protect
her identity includes her name and address in the motion). Filing a motion under seal, as provided
by D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.2B, is one way for a litigant to avoid publicly disclosing his or her identity.
See Achte/Neunte, 736 F. Supp. 2d at 215 (distinguishing a defendant who filed his motion to quash
under seal from defendants who filed their motions on the public record and finding that the former
defendant’s motion was not moot).
Although Defendant contests the extent to which an IP address may be used to identify an
actual copyright infringer, Defendant does not deny that the IP address listed in the subpoena is his
own. In light of Defendant’s disclosure of his name, address, and telephone number, the Court finds
that any ruling on the merits of Defendant’s Motion to Quash would have little, if any, practical
effect. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Quash is denied as moot.