Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-20
ORDER granting 7 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/28/2013. (mehcd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01340-WYD-MEH
KILLER JOE NEVADA, LLC, a California limited liability company,
JOHN DOES 1-20,
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery Prior
to Rule 26(f) Conference [filed May 24, 2013; docket #7]. Plaintiff’s motion is granted as follows.
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
After review of the motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff establishes good cause for limited
expedited discovery. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is granted 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 twenty (20) IP addresses
listed in Docket #1-1. The subpoenas shall be limited to providing Plaintiff with the 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.
The ISP shall notify the subscriber that his/her identity has 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
Entered and dated at Denver, Colorado, this 28th day of May, 2013.
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?