Good Man Productions, Inc. v. Doe

Filing 8

ORDER granting 6 Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(f) conference. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 4/16/2015. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
GOOD MAN PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:15-cv-100-Oc-32PRL

JOHN DOE
Defendant.

ORDER
The plaintiff, as the alleged owner of the copyright for A Good Man, seeks permission to
serve Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, the defendant’s alleged Internet Service Provider (“ISP”),
with a subpoena before the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. Doc. 6. With an
assumption that the subscriber is the infringer, it alleges the defendant, known to it only by an
internet protocol (“IP”) address, infringed its copyright by using BitTorrent protocol1 to copy and
distribute the movie. Docs. 1; 1-2; 1-3. It argues it needs early discovery to identify him or her.
Doc. 6-1.
A court has broad discretion in managing discovery. Klay v. All Defendants, 425 F.3d 977,
982 (11th Cir. 2005). A court may permit a party to conduct discovery before a Rule 26(f)
conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Courts usually require a showing of good cause for early
discovery. See TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Holden Prop. Servs., LLC, 299 F.R.D. 692, 694 (S.D.

1

Because many courts have already done so, the Court will refrain from describing the BitTorrent
protocol here See, e.g., Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 1026−27 (9th Cir. 2013);
Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1−28, 295 F.R.D. 527, 529–30 (M.D. Fla. 2012).

Fla. 2014); Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1–176, 270 F.R.D. 239, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Dorrah v.
United States, 282 F.R.D. 442, 445 (N.D. Iowa 2012).
Here, the plaintiff has established good cause for early discovery: it has sufficiently alleged
infringement, Doc. 1 at 3−6; it does not have another way to discover the putative infringer’s
identity to proceed with the litigation, Doc. 6-2; and ISPs rarely maintain the information for long,
Doc. 6-1 at 3. The Court therefore grants the plaintiff’s motion, Doc. 6, as follows:
1. The plaintiff may serve on Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 45 subpoena commanding the name, address, email address,
and telephone number of the subscriber of the identified IP address. The
subpoena must attach the complaint and this order.2
2. The plaintiff may use the subscriber’s information only to protect and enforce
its rights set forth in the complaint.
3. If Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, is a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C.
§ 522(5),3 it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2), which permits a cable
operator to disclose personal identifying information if the disclosure is “made
pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is notified
of such order by the person to whom the order is directed,” by sending a copy
of this order to the defendant.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on April 16, 2015.

2

The plaintiff attaches a proposed order to its motion that would permit it to also serve a subpoena
“on any provider identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of Internet services to the Defendant.”
Doc. 6-4 ¶3. The plaintiff has not requested that relief or otherwise explained the basis for the proposed
language in its motion. Docs. 6; 6-1. The Court therefore declines to include it.
Section 522(5) defines a “cable operator” as “any person or group of persons (A) who provides
cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest
in such cable system, or (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the
management and operation of such a cable system.”
3

-2-

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-