Purzel Video GmbH v. Does 1-20
Filing
14
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 4 Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/2/2013.(trlee, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02079-WYD-MEH
PURZEL VIDEO GmbH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
ORDER
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion and Memorandum for Leave to Take Discovery Prior
to Rule 26(f) Conference [filed August 5, 2013; docket #4]. 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 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 identified by the twenty (20) IP
addresses listed in Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (docket #1-1). The subpoenas shall
be limited to providing Plaintiff with the name, address, email address, and Media Access Control
address of the subscriber (Doe 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 #4-3] is denied.
Entered and dated at Denver, Colorado, this 2nd day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge
2
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?