Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-15
Filing
9
ORDER AND OPINION granting 8 Defendant John Doe #2's Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 7/19/13. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
KILLER JOE NEVADA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:13-cv-1515-JEC
DOE 1,
Defendant.
ORDER & OPINION
This matter is presently before the Court on a pro se Motion to
Quash [8] filed by one of the previously-severed defendants: John Doe
#2.
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
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
dismissed
the
prejudice.
actions
against
these
other
John
Does
without
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, John Doe #2, seeks to quash the subpoena
requesting
discoverable
information
received
by
Comcast
from
plaintiff. John Doe #2 has already been severed from this action and
the case against him has been dismissed without prejudice.
(See May
28, 2013 Order [5].)
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” [7] indicating
that the plaintiff has sent letters to all previous-subpoenaed
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
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 [8].
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send to defendant, along with this
order, copies of the June 19, 2013 Order [6] and the plaintiff’s June
28 Compliance Report [7].
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of July, 2013.
/s/ Julie E. Carnes
JULIE E. CARNES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
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?