Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-9
ORDER granting 8 Motion to Quash. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 8/23/2017. (Stouch, L.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Plaintiff Headhunter, LLC initiated this action to recover damages from nine unnamed
defendants (Does 1-9) for their alleged illegal downloading of a movie through the BitTorrent
network. Compl. passim, D.E. 1. Headhunter was aware of the internet protocol addresses that
downloaded the movie, but it did not know the identity of the individuals associated with the IP
addresses. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Expedited Discovery at 2, D.E. 6. Headhunter sought and
received permission to serve subpoenas on the internet service provider to uncover the names of
the individuals associated with the IP addresses. Mot. for Expedited Discovery at 2, D.E. 5; June
23, 2017 Order, D.E. 7. The order required the ISPs to provide notice to the subscribers and
allowed the subscribers time to file a motion to quash the subpoena. June 23, 2017 Order at 2-3.
Doe 6 filed a timely motion to quash the subpoena on July 31, 2017. (D.E. 8) Under the
court’s local rules, Headhunter had until August 14, 2017, to file a response to the motion. Local
Civil Rule 7.1(f)(2). The deadline passed without Headhunter filing a response.
In light of Headhunter’s failure to respond, the Motion to Quash (D.E. 8) is granted. The
subpoenaed entity, Charter Communications, is not required to produce the documents sought by
the subpoena issued in this case by Headhunter regarding Doe 6.
Dated: August 23, 2017
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
Robert S Numbers, II
UNITEDT.TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
United States Magistrate Judge
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?