Lynn Peak Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-35

Filing 14

ORDER granting 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification of Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 2/5/2014. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03203-WYD-MEH
LYNN PEAK PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-35,
Defendants.

ORDER

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification of Order [filed February 4, 2014; docket #12]is granted
and the order is clarified as follows.
Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery [docket #3] 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 as identified by the thirty-five (35) IP
addresses listed in Docket #3-2. 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 sanctions. Any other relief that may be requested in the motion is denied.
Entered and dated at Denver, Colorado, this 5th day of February, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

2