Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-9

Filing 10

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Quash. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 8/23/2017. (Stouch, L.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:17-CV-00296-BO Headhunter, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Order Does 1-9, Defendants. 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: Dated: August 23, 2017 ______________________________________ ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II Robert S Numbers, II UNITEDT.TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?