Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-64

Filing 10

ORDER AND OPINION granting 9 Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Linda Stephanie Riceman. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 7/12/13. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

KILL JOE NEVADA, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:13-cv-1511-JEC

DOE 1,
Defendant.
ORDER & OPINION
This matter is presently before the Court on a pro se motion to
quash [9] filed by one of the previously-severed defendants.
The plaintiff filed in this district the above copyright action,
as well as eleven (11) other essentially identical actions, against
anonymous defendants who were identified only by their internet
protocol (“IP”) addresses.
defendants

had

worked

Plaintiff asserted that these anonymous

collectively

to

infringe

its

copyright.

(Compl. [1] at ¶ 4.)
This Court, however, concluded that the plaintiff had not
sufficiently asserted facts to justify the joinder of these anonymous
defendants.

(May 28, 2013 Order [5].)

Therefore, the Court severed

all of the John Does in each case, except for each John Doe #1, and
dismissed

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

the

actions

against

these

other

John

Does

without

prejudice.

The Order indicated that the plaintiff could re-file its

complaint against each severed defendant, individually, if it chose
to do so.

(Id. at 11.)

Unfortunately, prior to severing the defendants, the Court had
granted

plaintiff’s

initial

motion

to

subpoena

the

anonymous

defendants’ cable service providers, as the defendants were known
only by their IP addresses.

(Vacated Order of May 8, 2013 [4].)

After vacating this order and severing the defendants, the Court
directed plaintiff to notify the cable providers of the dismissal of
these defendants and to withdraw the previously-issued subpoenas to
ensure that the ISPs and all of the severed defendants knew that they
were no longer named as defendants in the case.

(June 19, 2013 Order

[6] at 4-5.)
The present defendant received a notice from her cable provider,
dated June 14, 2013, that her IP address had been identified in the
plaintiff’s complaint and that they would be providing her contact
information in accordance with the subpoena.
attached to Def.’s Mot. to Quash [9].
98.242.80.34.

(Letter from Comcast,

The defendant’s IP address is

(Letter from Comcast [9] at 1.)

According to the

complaint, this IP address corresponds to John Doe #12.
at Ex. A.)

(Compl. [1]

Therefore, this defendant has already been severed from

this action and the case against her has been dismissed without
prejudice.

(See June 2013 Order [6].) This defendant was almost
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

certainly unaware of this Court’s June 19 Order dismissing her as a
defendant.

For that reason, she seeks to quash the subpoena.

(Def.’s Mot. to Quash [9].)
Normally, the Court would deny as moot a motion to quash by a
defendant who had been dismissed.

Moreover, at the direction of the

Court, the plaintiff has filed a “Compliance Report” [6] indicating
that the plaintiff has sent letters to all previous-subpoenaed
Internet Service Providers, indicating that the plaintiff

was

withdrawing and rescinding all previously-issued subpoenas except as
to the John Doe #1 in each case.

That notification by plaintiff to

the ISPs should provide protection to this defendant as well.

Yet,

to avoid any confusion by the ISP or any chance of an erroneous
disclosure, the Court will formally GRANT this defendant’s motion to
quash the subpoena.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send to defendant, along with this
order, copies of the June 19, 2013 Order [8] and the plaintiff’s June
28 Compliance Report [6].

SO ORDERED, this 12th day of July, 2013.

/s/ Julie E. Carnes
JULIE E. CARNES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)