QOTD Film Investment, Ltd v. Does 1-21

Filing 9

ORDER Denying 5 and 7 MOTIONS to Quash Subpeonas. 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 MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS (ECF ## 5, 7)
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 (the “Discovery

1

Motion”). (See ECF #2.) The Court granted the Discovery Motion by written order
on April 15, 2016 (the “Discovery Order”). (See ECF #3.)
On May 18, 2016, the Court received a hand-written letter from an
individual who is one of the John Doe Defendants named in this action (the “May
18 Letter”). (See ECF #5.) In the May 18 Letter, the John Doe Defendant denied
having downloaded the Queen of the Desert movie. (See id.) In addition, the John
Doe Defendant wrote that he did not “give [his] consent to have [his] personal
information given [to QOTD] by [his internet service provider] or anyone else.”
(Id.)
On May 23, 2016, the Court received a second letter from a John Doe
Defendant (the “May 23 Letter”). (See ECF #7.)

In the May 23 Letter, an

individual informed the Court that she wanted “to quash and vacate the subpoena
[she] received from the Comcast office.” (See id.)
The Court construes both letters as motions to quash the subpoenas
authorized in the Discovery Order. For the reasons that follow, it denies both
motions.
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
2

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 subpoenas at issue request only the name and contact information
of the John Doe Defendants. As QOTD accurately points out in its response brief
(see ECF #6 at 4, Pg. ID 52), it cannot move forward in this action without this
information because it has no other way of identifying the John Doe Defendants.
There was thus good cause for the Court to grant the Discovery Motion and allow
QOTD to subpoena the contact information of the John Doe Defendants.
Neither the May 18 Letter nor the May 23 Letter identify any provision of
Rule 45(d) (or any other applicable federal rule) which the subpoenas violate.
Indeed, the information requested in the subpoenas is discoverable, and the
subpoenas do 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 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”). Defendants’ have therefore not provided any
basis under which the Court could quash the subpoenas.
3

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
the motions to quash subpoenas (ECF ## 5, 7) are DENIED.

Dated: May 26, 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 May 26, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4