ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9
OPINION AND ORDER denying 10 Motion to Quash or Vacate Subpoena. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff, upon receipt of contact information for Defendant Doe 8, toserve a copy of (1) its response to the instant motion and (2) this Opinion and Order on Defendant Doe 8. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 2/15/17. (nal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
) CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-468-TLS-PRC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion [DE 10], filed by Defendant Doe 8 on January
17, 2017. Plaintiff ME2 Productions, Inc. filed a response on January 31.1 Doe 8 has not filed a
reply, and the time in which to do so has passed. The motion is ripe for ruling and, for the reasons
stated below, will be denied.
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges copyright infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted work by nine
Doe Defendants. Plaintiff indicates that the true names of Defendants are unknown to Plaintiff and
that Defendants are only known to Plaintiff by the Internet Protocol address assigned to each
Defendant by his or her Internet Service Provider (ISP). Previously, Plaintiff asked the Court to
issue an Order permitting Plaintiff to issue subpoenas to the ISP for the purpose of identifying the
Doe Defendants. The Court granted that motion on November 16, 2016.
Doe 8 filed the instant motion, requesting that the subpoena issued to the ISP be quashed
because Doe 8 represents that Doe 8 did not in fact commit the alleged infringement and can provide
proof that Doe 8 was at work at the time of the infringement. Doe 8 does not present any legal
authority to support quashing the subpoena on this basis.
The Court notes that there is no certification that Plaintiff served a copy of its response on Doe 8. Doe 8 filed
the instant motion by hand delivering it to the Office of the Clerk of Court and did not provide any contact information.
The Court has no contact information for Doe 8. Under the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s failure to serve a copy of its
response on Doe 8 is excused.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(1)(A)(iii), a party may serve a subpoena
commanding a nonparty to produce designated documents. Under Rule 45(d)(3)(A), a court must
quash or modify a subpoena if it fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; requires a person to
comply beyond the jurisdictional requirements of the rule; requires disclosure of privileged or other
protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or subjects a person to undue burden. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i)-(iv). In addition to these mandatory grounds for quashing a subpoena, there
are also permissible reasons for quashing a subpoena, but none are relevant here. See id. at
Denials of liability “are not relevant as to the validity or enforceability of a subpoena, but
rather should be presented and contested once parties are brought properly into the suit.”First Time
Videos, LLC v. Does 1-500, 276 F.R.D. 241, 251 (N.D. Ill. 2011); see also Malibu Media, LLC v.
John Does 1-14, Cause No. 1:12-CV-263, 2013 WL 2285950, at *3 (N.D. Ind. May 22, 2013).
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion [DE 10].
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff, upon receipt of contact information for Defendant Doe 8, to
serve a copy of (1) its response to the instant motion and (2) this Opinion and Order on Defendant
So ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2017.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?