QOTD Film Investment, Ltd v. Does 1-21
Filing
16
ORDER Denying 15 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
QOTD FILM INVESTMENT, Ltd,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-11274
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
DOES 1-21,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA (ECF #15)
On April 7, 2016, Plaintiff QOTD Film Investment, Ltd. (“QOTD”) filed
this action against twenty-one “John Doe” Defendants. (See Compl., ECF #1.) In
its Complaint, QOTD alleges that the unnamed Defendants illegally downloaded
and/or allowed others to illegally download the movie “Queen of the Desert,”
which QOTD produced. (See id.)
At the time it filed its Complaint, QOTD did not know the name or contact
information for any of the John Doe Defendants.
The only information it
possessed was the Internet Protocol (“IP”) address for those individuals. Thus, on
the same day it filed its Complaint, QOTD filed a motion requesting that the Court
allow it issue subpoenas to various internet service providers so that it could obtain
the name and contact information of the John Doe Defendants. (See ECF #2.) The
1
Court granted the two discovery motions by written order on April 15, 2016 (the
“Discovery Order”). (See ECF #3.)
On July 11, 2016, one of the John Doe Defendants (“John Doe #7”) filed a
motion to quash the subpoena his ISP had received from QOTD (the “Motion”).
(See ECF #15.) In the Motion, John Doe Defendant #7 says that he has “changed
passwords for [his] internet connections and [undertook] other procedures Comcast
had [him] do” to protect his account. (Id. at 1, Pg. ID 143.)
Under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a subpoena may be
quashed or modified if: (i) the subpoena fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) the subpoena requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits
specified in the federal rules; (iii) the subpoena requires disclosure of privileged or
other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) the subpoena
subjects a person to undue burden. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 45(d)(3)(A) (“Rule
45(d)”).
Here, the subpoena at issue requests only the name and contact information
of the John Doe Defendants. That information is discoverable, and the subpoena
does not request any “privileged or other protected” information. See, e.g., TCYK,
LLC v. Does 1-47, 2013 WL 4805022, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2013) (denying
motion to quash subpoena and holding that “even if discovery later reveals that a
person other than the subscriber violated plaintiff's copyright, the subpoenaed
2
information (the subscriber's contact information) is nevertheless reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information, i.e., the identity of
the actual infringer”).
Moreover, while John Doe Defendant #7 argues that he has now
“protect[ed]” his online account with Comcast, that is in the nature of a defense on
the merits of QOTD’s claims. It provides no basis for quashing the subpoena.
Simply put, John Doe Defendant #7 has not identified any provision of Rule 45(d)
(or any other applicable federal rule) that supports his Motion.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
the Motion (ECF #15) is DENIED.
Dated: August 10, 2016
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on August 10, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(313) 234-5113
3
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?