First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-76

Filing 27

ORDER denying re 17 MOTION to Quash, MOTION for Protective Order, MOTION to Sever filed by John Doe 74.178.230.219; denying 9 MOTION to Quash, MOTION to Sever, MOTION for Protective Order filed by John Doe 74.4.213.245; denying 10 MOTION to Quash, MOTION to Sever, MOTION for Protective Order filed by John Doe 72.91.240.135; denying 12 MOTION to Sever for Improper Joinder, MOTION for Protective Order, Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by John Doe 72.64.232.247; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending denying [9,10, 12 and 17] MOTIONS to dismiss.( Objections to R&R due by 7/16/2012), Motions, terminated: [9, 10, 12, 17] except MOTIONS to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 6/28/2012. (mms)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 12-20921-CIV-LENARD/O'SULLIVAN
FIRST TIME VIDEOS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOES 1 - 76,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following motions:
1. John Doe 74.4.213.245's Motion to Dismiss/Sever and for a Protective
order and/or to Quash Subpoena (DE# 9, 4/20/12);
2. John Doe 72.91.240.135's Motion to Dismiss/Sever and for a Protective
order and/or to Quash Subpoena (DE# 10, 4/20/12);
3. John Doe 72.64.232.247's Motion to Dismiss/Sever and for a
Protective order and/or to Quash Subpoena (DE# 12, 5/1/12); and
4. John Doe 74.178.230.219's Motion to Dismiss/Sever and for a
Protective order and/or to Quash Subpoena (DE# 17, 5/7/12). Having reviewed the
motions, response and reply, and having held a hearing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motions for protective order and/or to
quash subpoena (DE# 9, 10, 12 and 17) are DENIED. The undersigned finds that there
is a minimal expectation of privacy for information provided to internet providers. See
Boy Racer, Inc. v. John Does 1-34, 2012 WL 1535703, * 4 (S.D. Fla. 2012)
(“[I]ndividuals who use the Internet to download or distribute copyrighted works are
engaged in only a limited exercise of speech and the First Amendment does not

necessarily protect such persons’ identities from disclosure.” (quoting AF Holdings,
LLC v. Does 1-162, No. 11-23036-CIV, 2012 WL 488217, * 3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 14,
2012)(citations omitted)). The requested information is directed to the internet service
provider, not the internet provider address, to obtain information necessary for the
plaintiff to establish the identity of the putative defendants. See AF Holdings, 2012 WL
488217 at * 3 (“A party to an action generally may not seek to quash or modify a
subpoena on behalf of the non-party to which it was issued.”) (citation omitted). It is
further
RECOMMENDED that the motions to dismiss/sever (DE# 9, 10, 12 and 17) be
DENIED. The undersigned agrees with the AF Holding decision that the motions by the
above-referenced Does are premature as they are not named defendants.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of this Report and
Recommendation within which to serve and file written objections, if any, with the
Honorable Judge Lenard, United States District Court Judge. Failure to file objections
timely shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal the factual findings contained
herein. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
958 (1988); See Also, RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir.
1993).
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 28th day of June,
2012.

Copies provided to:
United States District Judge Lenard
Counsel of Record

__________________________________
JOHN J. O’SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2