ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.193.144.240

Filing 22

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Quash. Not only has the objector failed to state any basis for his or her objection, as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3); Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does, No. 12-cv- 3170, 2013 WL 1164867, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2013), but also the subpoena at issue seeks very limited disclosures, only defendant's true name and address, and places no burden whatsoever on the objector since it is directed to a third party, Time Warner, see 4/10/17 Order at 2. Accordingly, the objector's motion to quash is denied. Ordered by Chief Mag. Judge Roanne L. Mann on 6/5/2017. (Pauley, Anders)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------x
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
- against -

ORDER
17-CV-1456 (KAM)

DOE–24.193.144.240,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
By order dated April 10, 2017, this Court permitted plaintiff ME2 Productions, Inc.
(“plaintiff”) to serve a subpoena on internet service provider Time Warner Cable (“Time
Warner”), pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), in order to
learn the true identity of defendant Doe–24.193.144.240 (“defendant”), a Time Warner
subscriber who has purportedly infringed plaintiff’s copyright. See Order (Apr. 10, 2017)
(“4/10/17 Order”), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry (“DE”) #15. On May 30, 2017, the
Court received an anonymous letter, apparently from defendant, “objecting to the whole
content of this subpoena[,]” without elaboration or return address. See Letter (May 30, 2017)
(“5/30/17 Letter”), DE #19. Construing the 5/30/17 Letter as either a motion to quash or for
reconsideration of the 4/10/17 Order, plaintiff opposes the objector’s request “for failing to
provide any basis for his/her objection.” See Letter (June 2, 2017), DE #20.
The Court construes defendant’s letter as a motion to quash and denies it. Not only has
the objector failed to state any basis for his or her objection, as the FRCP require, see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(d)(3); Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does, No. 12-cv-3170, 2013 WL 1164867, at
*2 (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2013), but also the subpoena at issue seeks very limited disclosures,

only defendant’s true name and address, and places no burden whatsoever on the objector
since it is directed to a third party, Time Warner, see 4/10/17 Order at 2.
Accordingly, the objector’s motion to quash is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 2, 2017
Brooklyn, New York

/s/

Roanne L. Mann

ROANNE L. MANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2