Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-30

Filing 14

ORDER Deeming WITHDRAWN Defendant Washington's 8 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:11-cv-15236
JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL J. KOMIVES

v.

JOHN DOES 1-30 and
RAYMOND WASHINGTON,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DEEMING WITHDRAWN
DEFENDANT WASHINGTON’S MARCH 16, 2012 MOTION (Doc. Ent. 8)
A.

Background

1.

Patrick Collins, Inc. filed this copyright infringement lawsuit on November 29, 2011. At

that time, defendants were John Does 1-30. The causes of action include (I) direct infringement
against Does 1-30; (II) contributory infringement against Does 1-30; (III) direct trademark
infringement against Does 1-30; and (IV) contributory trademark infringement against Does 130. Doc. Ent. 1.1
On January 10, 2012, I entered an order (Doc. Ent. 7) on plaintiff’s motion for leave to
serve third party subpoenas prior to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference (Doc. Ent. 2). Pursuant to
that order, plaintiff was permitted to serve “each of the ISPs with a Rule 45 subpoena

1

Exhibits to the complaint include (A) defendant IP addresses (Doc. Ent. 1-3); (B)
copyright registrations (Doc. Ent. 1-4); (C) BitTorrent vocabulary (Doc. Ent. 1-5); and (D)
screenshot of “swarm” activity (Doc. Ent. 1-6). See Doc. Ent. 1-2 (Exhibit Index).
1

commanding each ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name, address, telephone number, e-mail
address and Media Access Control (“MAC”) address of the Defendant to whom the ISP assigned
an IP address as set forth on Exhibit A to the Motion.” Doc. Ent. 7 ¶ 2.
B.

Instant Motions
Currently before the Court is Raymond Washington’s March 16, 2012 “answer to

complaint,” which the Clerk of the Court docketed as a motion to quash or vacate subpoena and
answer to complaint. In its entirety, Washington’s filing states:
To whom it may concern, I am filing this motion to quash or vacate this
subpoena. I’ve realized that I have made a mistake in this matter and I’m asking
the courts to vacate this issue.
Thank you.
Doc. Ent. 8.
In its March 30, 2012 response, plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. asserted that defendant
Washington’s filing “fails to state any reason for why the court should quash the subpoena,” and
that “[t]here is no factual basis or legal theory presented by the Defendant in support of the
motion.” Doc. Ent. 10.
C.

Discussion
Judge Borman referred this motion to me for hearing and determination. Doc. Ent. 11. A

hearing on this matter was noticed for May 1, 2012. Doc. Ent. 13.
On the date set for hearing, attorney John S. Hone appeared on behalf of plaintiff and
defendant Raymond Washington appeared on his own behalf. At that time, I granted defendant
Washington’s request to withdraw his March 16, 2012 motion (Doc. Ent. 8). Plaintiff’s
counsel’s office will contact defendant Washington and work out an amicable resolution of this

2

matter.
D.

Order
Accordingly, defendant Washington’s March 16, 2012 motion (Doc. Ent. 8) is DEEMED

WITHDRAWN.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The attention of the parties is drawn to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a), which provides a period of
fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order within which to file any
objections for consideration by the District Judge as may be permissible under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).

Dated: May 1, 2012

s/Paul J. Komives
PAUL J. KOMIVES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on May 1,
2012 electronically or by U.S. mail.
s/Michael Williams
Relief Case Manager for the Honorable
Paul J. Komives

3