MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 24.192.193.126
Filing
6
AMENDED OPINION and ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 18-cv-10667
Honorable Linda V. Parker
JOHN DOE subscriber assigned
IP address 24.192.193.126,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA
PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE
On January 26, 2018, Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this
lawsuit against an unknown individual alleging copyright infringement based on
the individual’s download and distribution of Plaintiff’s copyrighted adult movies.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party
Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference, also filed January 24, 2018. (ECF No.
2.) Plaintiff filed the motion seeking to serve a subpoena on Internet Service
Provider (“ISP”) WideOpen West (“hereafter “WideOpen West” or “ISP”) in order
to identify the individual associated with the Internet Protocol (“IP”) address from
which the alleged infringing conduct is being committed. For the reasons that
follow, the Court is granting Plaintiff’s motion with certain conditions imposed.
Plaintiff operates a subscription based website. (Pl.’s Mot., Ex. A at ¶¶ 7,
ECF No. 3-1 at Pg ID 47.) Plaintiff claims Defendant downloads and distributes
Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, without Plaintiff’s authorization, permission or
consent. (Pl.’s Mot., Ex. C ¶ 8, ECF No. 3-3 at Pg ID 62-63; see also Compl. Ex.
A, ECF No. 1-2.) IPP International UG, on behalf of Plaintiff, identified the IP
address the individual used to conduct the alleged infringing activity. (Pl.’s Mot.,
Ex C ¶¶ 8-10, ECF No. 3-3 at Pg ID 62-63.)
Rule 26(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits the
propounding of discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, except in limited
circumstances not applicable here or when authorized by court order. A number of
courts have applied a “good cause” standard to determine whether such discovery
should be authorized. See, e.g., Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19, 551 F. Supp. 2d
1, 6 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing cases); Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-28, No. 12-13670,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124349, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2012). In copyright
infringement cases like the present one, courts routinely find good cause to permit
discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference to identify the defendants where:
(1) the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of a copyright infringement claim;
(2) the plaintiff submits a specific discovery request; (3) the information sought is
limited in scope and not available through alternative means; (4) there is a central
need for the subpoenaed information; and (5) there is a minimal expectation of
2
privacy on the part of the defendant. See Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d
110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Sony Music Entm’t, Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp.
2d 556, 564-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)); Arista Records LLC, 551 F. Supp. 2d at 6-7
(citing cases).
Plaintiff establishes that “good cause” exists for it to serve a third-party
subpoena on the ISP in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference. Plaintiff makes a
prima facie showing of a claim of copyright infringement, submits a specific
discovery request, establishes that there are no alternative means to obtain the
information that its seeks through the discovery, establishes a central need for the
information, and Defendant has a minimal expectation of privacy. It is clear to the
Court that Defendant must be identified before this suit can progress further.
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve
a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference, with certain limitations
outlined herein:
1.
Plaintiff may serve immediate discovery on WideOpen West to
obtain the identity of the Doe Defendant by serving a Rule 45
subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify
Defendant, including the individual’s name and current (and
permanent) addresses. Disclosure of the information requested
is ordered pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which
authorizes cable operators to disclose personally identifiable
information when the cable operators are ordered to do so by a
court.
2.
Plaintiff shall attach a copy of this Opinion and Order to each
subpoena that it issues.
3
3.
Any information disclosed to Plaintiff in response to the Rule
45 subpoena may be used by Plaintiff solely for the purpose of
protecting Plaintiff’s rights as set forth in the Complaint.
4.
If and when WideOpen West is served with a subpoena, it shall
give written notice, which may include e-mail notice, to the
subscriber in question within seven (7) days of service of the
subpoena. If WideOpen West and/or Defendant wants to file a
motion in response to the subpoena, the party must do so before
the return date of the subpoena, which shall not be less than
thirty (30) days from the date of such written notice.
5.
WideOpen West shall not produce the information requested
before the return date of the subpoena or the resolution of any
timely filed motion challenging the subpoena, whichever occurs
later.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 1, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 1, 2018, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager
4
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?