Cook Productions, LLC v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 8

ORDER granting 4 Motion for Discovery. Counsel should read this order in its entirety for critical information. Signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 12/22/2016. (Briggeman, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:16-CV-00909-D
Cook Productions, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Order

Does 1–7,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Cook Productions, LLC requests leave of court to conduct discovery prior to
conducting a Rule 26(f) conference.

The Court, having reviewed the Motion and the

Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion believes that good cause has been shown to grant
the motion. Therefore is it ordered that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion is ALLOWED on the terms set forth below.

2.

As to each Defendant, Plaintiff may serve each of the ISPs with a Rule 45

subpoena commanding each ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name, permanent address,
current address, telephone number, email address, and Media Access Control (“MAC”) address
of the Defendant to whom the ISP assigned an Internet Protocol (“IP”) address as set forth in
Exhibit B to the Complaint. Each ISP is ordered to provide the documents sought in each
subpoena in accordance with the terms of this Order. Plaintiff shall attach to any such subpoena a
copy of this Order.
3.

Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the same manner as above on any

service provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of internet services to
one of the Defendants.

4.

Each of the ISPs qualify as a “cable operator,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 522(5)

by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant.
5.

The subpoenaed ISPs shall not require Plaintiff to pay a fee in advance of

providing the subpoenas information; nor shall the subpoenaed ISPs require Plaintiff to pay a fee
for an IP address that is not controlled by such ISP, or for duplicate IP addresses that resolved to
the same individual, or for an address that does not provide the name of a unique individual, or
for the ISPs’ internal costs to notify their customers. If necessary, the Court shall resolved any
disputes between the ISPs and Plaintiff regarding the reasonableness of the amount proposed to
be charged by the ISPs after the subpoenaed information is provided to Plaintiff.
6.

Within seven days after the date of Plaintiff’s service on the ISPs of a subpoena

authorized herein, each ISP shall serve written notice of the subpoena on the Defendant about
whom documents are sought in the subpoena. If an ISP or a Defendant about whom documents
are sought in a subpoena wishes to have the subpoena quashed or modified, such person
(whether it be an ISP or a Defendant) must file with the court and serve on counsel for Plaintiff a
motion to quash or modify the subpoena prior to the return date for the subpoena (which is the
date specified in the subpoena for production of the documents sought). The return date shall be
no earlier than 28 days after the date of service by Plaintiff of the subpoena on the ISPs.
7.

An ISP shall not produce any documents in response to a subpoena prior to the

return date or, if any motions to quash or modify are filed with respect to the subpoena, unless
and until an order is entered denying any such motions and permitting production pursuant to the
subpoena (in which case production shall be in accordance with the terms of such order).
Plaintiff shall notify the ISPs of the filing of any motion to quash or modify a subpoena within
one day after the filing of the motion. An ISP shall make appropriate arrangements to ensure that

2

it has notice of any motions to quash or modify a subpoena before it produces any documents in
response to the subpoena.
8.

Any documents produced to Plaintiff in response to a subpoena, including the

information contained therein, may be used by Plaintiff solely for the purpose of prosecuting its
infringement claims in this action.
9.

Except as expressly provided herein, by further order of the court, or in the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff may not engage in discovery in this action prior to
conducting a Rule 26(f) conference.
Dated: December 20, 2016.
Dated: December 22, 2016
____________________________________
______________________________________
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
Robert T. Numbers, II
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
United States Magistrate Judge

3