MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.11.57
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 4 Motion to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 4/14/2016. (eaj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPNION
AND ORDER
JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP
ADDRESS 173.63.11.57,
Defendant.
BONGIOVANNI, Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC' s ("Plaintiff')
Motion to File a Subpoena Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference. [Docket Entry No. 4]. Plaintiff
wishes to serve a third-party subpoena on the John Doe Defendant's ("Defendant") Internet
Service Provider, to obtain the true name and address of the Defendant assigned the IP address
listed in the complaint. [Id., see also Docket Entry No. 1, Pltf's. Cmplt.]. Plaintiffs motion is
unopposed as the Defendant has not answered the Plaintiffs complaint, nor responded to the
motion. The Court has fully considered all papers submitted in support of Plaintiff's motion and
considers the same without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 78. For the
reasons set forth more fully below, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
Rule 26(d)(l) governs the timing of discovery and provides: "[a] party may not seek
discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)." The
Court however, may grant leave to conduct discovery prior to a rule 26(f) conference for "good
cause". Malibu Media v. John Doe, Case No. 3:14-cv-03864;..MAS-DEA, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept 8,
1
2014).
Good cause exists where "the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the
administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party."
Id citing Am.
Legalnet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2009); accord Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo
Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
Plaintiff argues that the "good cause" exists ·because (1) the Plaintiff has made a prima
facie showing of copyright infringement,· (2) the Plaintiff submitted a specific discovery request,
(3) there is an absence of alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information, (4) there is a
central need for the subpoenaed information, and (5) Defendants have a minimal expectation of
pnvacy.
[Docket Entry No. 4-4, at p. 5-6].
In weighing the aforementioned, the Court
recognizes the Plaintiff, as the owner of the copyrighted works in question, has a strong interest in
protecting its copyrights and correspondingly has a strong interest in ascertaining the identity
alleged infringers. The Court also finds the Defendant would not be prejudiced as he/she has
already voluntarily conveyed their subscriber information - including their name and address - to
their internet service provider, and therefore has only a minimal expectation of privacy. See First
Time Videos, LLCv. Does 1-500, 276 F.R.D. 241, 257 (N.D. Ill. 201 l;Achte/Neunte, 736 F. Supp.
2d 212, 216) (finding disclosure of personal information to ISP negates privacy interests); accord
Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Smith, 274 F.R.D. 334, 339-40 (D.D.C. 2011). Therefore, on
balance the Court finds the Plaintiffs strong interest in protecting their copyrights outweighs the
Defendants negligible prejudice. Thus, for the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this
Ji
day of April, 2016,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Discovery to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to
Rule26(f) Conference is GRANTED and it is further
2
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court terminate this Motion [Docket Entry No. 4]
accordingly.
s/Tonianne J. Bongiovanni
HONORABLE TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?