Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-14
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/6/2012. (mehcd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03171-CMA-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC.,
JOHN DOES 1-14,
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 [filed December 6, 2012; docket #6]. Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part
and denied in part as follows.
Plaintiff’s motion alleges that the Doe Defendants, identified only by their Internet Protocol
(“IP”) addresses, have infringed on Plaintiff’s copyrighted works by using the internet and a
“BitTorrent” protocol to reproduce, distribute, display, or perform Plaintiff’s protected films.
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
After review of Plaintiff’s 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
December 6, 2012; docket #6] 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 fourteen (14) IP addresses
listed in Docket #6-3. 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. Each ISP shall notify the subscribers that their identities have been subpoenaed by the
Plaintiff. 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 #6-5] is denied.
Entered and dated at Denver, Colorado, this 6th day of December, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?