Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 184.108.40.206
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior toa Rule 26(f) Conference by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 05/21/14.(jhawk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01374-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 220.127.116.11,
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to
a Rule 26(f) Conference [filed May 21, 2014; docket #8]. Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
Plaintiff’s motion alleges that the Doe Defendant, identified only by an Internet Protocol
(“IP”) address, has infringed on Plaintiff’s copyrighted works 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
Defendant’s Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. The purpose of
this discovery is to obtain additional information concerning the identity of the Doe Defendant.
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 in part as follows. The Plaintiff may
serve a third party subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 on the identified ISP with the limited
purpose of ascertaining the identity of the Doe Defendant. The subpoena shall be limited to
providing Plaintiff with the name, address, telephone number, and email address of the subscriber
(Doe Defendant) to whom the ISP has assigned an IP address. With the 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 subpoena for the purpose of protecting and enforcing its
rights as set forth in its Complaint [docket #1]. The Court cautions Plaintiff that any improper use
of this information may result in sanctions. Any other relief requested in the proposed order [docket
#8-5] is denied.
Entered and dated at Denver, Colorado, this 21st day of May, 2014.
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?