West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-50

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for expedited discovery pursuant to this Courts Order of October16, 2012 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Doc. No. 10.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charter Communications, Inc., t he Internet Service Provider for Doe Number 6, shall notify Doe Number 6 of his/her obligation to file, not later than Friday, April 19, 2013, a motion to quash explaining the reasons for his/her objection to the disclosure of the requested identifyi ng information in accordance with this Courts Order of October16, 2012. Plaintiff will be granted until Friday, May 3, 2013, to respond to the motion to quash. Thereafter, the Court will rule on the motion to quash and determine whether Doe Number 6 will be required to disclose the pertinent identifying information. Doe Number 6 is cautioned that failure to comply with this order may result in the Courts imposition of sanctions for failure to cooperate in discovery and to comply with an order of the Court.( Response to Court due by 5/3/2013.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 3/20/13. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WEST COAST PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-50,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV01679 AGF

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff, West Coast Productions, Inc.’s (“West
Coast”) motion for Expedited Discovery of Doe Number 6’s identifying information.
(Doc. No. 10.) On October 6, 2012, this Court issued an Order (Doc. No. 7.) permitting
Plaintiff to serve discovery requests on non-party Internet Service Providers (“ISP”) to
allow Plaintiff to identify the individuals associated with the particular ISP addresses
allegedly involved in infringing activity with respect to Plaintiff’s motion pictures.
The Order, served on each account holder by their ISP, outlines a specific
procedure by which the account holders may contest the subpoena. This procedure
includes filing a motion to quash or modify the subpoena as well as a request to be filed
not later than January 16, 2013, to litigate the subpoena anonymously. Id. at 2. If a Doe
defendant complies with this procedure and files such a motion, the ISP is permitted to
withhold that Doe’s identifying information from discovery by Plaintiff. Id.
Plaintiff asserts that it has received notice from Charter Communications, Inc.
(“Charter”), Doe Number 6’s ISP, that Doe Number 6 “objected” to the subpoena. Doe

Number 6 has neither filed a motion to quash nor otherwise challenged the subpoena
before this Court. Plaintiff represents that Doe Number 6 also has failed to provide
notice to Plaintiff of the grounds for its objection. On this basis Plaintiff now moves for
an order requiring Doe Number 6’s ISP, Charter, to produce the identifying information
for Doe Number 6 in accordance with the October 16, 2012 Order.
The Court is not persuaded that such an order is warranted at this juncture. The
Court will instead order Charter to notify its customer, Doe number 6, of the requirement
set forth in the Court’s October 6, 2012 Order to file a motion to quash, in essence, a
formal statement of his reasons for objecting to the disclosure.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery
pursuant to this Court’s Order of October16, 2012 is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. (Doc. No. 10.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charter Communications, Inc., the Internet
Service Provider for Doe Number 6, shall notify Doe Number 6 of his/her obligation to
file, not later than Friday, April 19, 2013, a motion to quash explaining the reasons for
his/her objection to the disclosure of the requested identifying information in accordance
with this Court’s Order of October16, 2012. Plaintiff will be granted until Friday, May
3, 2013, to respond to the motion to quash. Thereafter, the Court will rule on the motion
to quash and determine whether Doe Number 6 will be required to disclose the pertinent
identifying information. Doe Number 6 is cautioned that failure to comply with this
order may result in the Court’s imposition of sanctions for failure to cooperate in
-2-

discovery and to comply with an order of the Court.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of March, 2013.

-3-