ELEGANT ANGEL, INC. v. DOES 1-115

Filing 6

ORDER re 5 Motion for Discovery is GRANTED. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 11/23/2011. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ELEGANT ANGEL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00245-SPM-GRJ

DOES 1-115,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 5, Motion for Leave to Take Discovery
Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference by Elegant Angel, Inc. The plaintiff has filed a complaint
against one hundred fifteen (115) John Does who allegedly have obtained copies of
plaintiff’s copyrighted work without authorization through a file-swapping network. The
plaintiff requests leave to serve third party subpoenas on the defendant's Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) to obtain defendants' names prior to a Rule 26(f) conference.
In support of its request, the plaintiff states that the defendants cannot be identified
without information from their respective ISPs, and such ISPs have limited retention
periods for the relevant records.
In copyright infringement cases, courts routinely find good cause exists to issue
a Rule 45 subpoena to discover a Doe defendant’s identity prior to a Rule 26(f)
conference where a plaintiff makes: (1) a prima facie showing of infringement, (2) there
is no other way to identify the Doe Defendant, and (3) there is a risk an ISP will destroy
its logs prior to the conference. See UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 4104214, *4
(N.D. Cal. 2008); Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6-7 (D.D.C.

Page 2 of 2

2008) (noting the overwhelming number of cases where copyright infringement plaintiffs
sought to identify Doe defendants and courts routinely applied the good cause standard
to permit discovery).
In the instant case, the Court finds that there is good cause to grant the relief
requested based upon plaintiff’s necessity to serve subpoenas upon ISPs to ascertain
the identity of the defendants in this case.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f)
Conference, Doc. 5, is GRANTED.

2.

The plaintiff may conduct immediate discovery on the Internet Service
Providers listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint with a subpoena under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking information sufficient to
identify each Doe defendant, including name, current and permanent
address, telephone number, e-mail address, and Media Access Control
Address.

3.

The plaintiff may serve a Rule 45 subpoena also upon any intermediary
Internet Service Provider that may be identified in response to a subpoena
as providing internet services to one or more of the Doe defendants.

4.

If and when an Internet Service Provider is served with a subpoena, the
Provider shall give written notice, which may include e-mail notice, to any
affected subscribers within five business days, and such notice shall inform
the subscribers of their right to challenge the subpoena in this Court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 2011.

s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-245-SPM-GRJ