QOTD Film Investment, Ltd v. Does 1-18, et al

Filing 8

ORDER Denying 6 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

2:16-cv-11275-MFL-SDD Doc # 8 Filed 06/20/16 Pg 1 of 3

Pg ID 90

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
QOTD FILM INVESTMENT, Ltd,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-11275
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
DOES 1-26,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA (ECF #6)
On April 7, 2016, Plaintiff QOTD Film Investment, Ltd. (“QOTD”) filed
this action against twenty-six “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.)
QOTD filed a second motion seeking this discovery on April 8, 2016. (See ECF
1

2:16-cv-11275-MFL-SDD Doc # 8 Filed 06/20/16 Pg 2 of 3

Pg ID 91

#4.) The Court granted the two discovery motions by written order on April 15,
2016 (the “Discovery Order”). (See ECF #5.)
On June 14, 2016, one of the John Doe Defendants filed a motion to quash
the subpoena his ISP had received from QOTD (the “Motion”). (See ECF #6.) In
the Motion, the John Doe Defendant argues that QOTD has improperly joined all
twenty-six Defendants in one action and that the Court should quash the subpoena
on that basis. (See id.)
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

2:16-cv-11275-MFL-SDD Doc # 8 Filed 06/20/16 Pg 3 of 3

Pg ID 92

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 the John Doe Defendant has objected to QOTD filing one
lawsuit against twenty-six different individual Defendants, that objection provides
no basis for quashing the subpoena. Simply put, the John Doe Defendant 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 #6) is DENIED.

Dated: June 20, 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 June 20, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3