UN4 Productions, Inc v. Does 1-13
ORDER granting 4 Motion for Discovery. Counsel should read the order in its entirety for critical information. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 9/11/2017. (Briggeman, N.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
UN4 Productions, Inc.,
Plaintiff UN4 Productions, Incorporated, requests leave of court to engage in limited discovery
prior to the parties engaging in a Rule 26(f) conference. D.E. 4. After reviewing the relevant
pleadings and filings. The court finds that there is good cause to grant the motion. Therefore, the
motion is granted and discovery will be allowed on the following terms:
Plaintiff may serve each of the ISPs identified in Exhibit B of the Complaint with a
subpoena commanding the ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name, permanent address,
current address, telephone number, email address, and Media Access Control (“MAC”) address
of each 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 a copy of this Order to each
In the event that the ISP identified in Exhibit 2 of the Complaint responds that it is not
the ISP for a particular defendant, Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP that is
subsequently identified as the Defendant’s actual ISP.
Each of the ISPs that qualify as a “cable operator,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §
522(5) shall comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(b), which states that “[a] cable operator may
disclose such [personal identifying] information if the disclosure is…made pursuant to a court
order authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is noticed of such order by the person to
whom the order is directed by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant.”
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.
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.
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 it has notice of
any motions to quash or modify a subpoena before it produces any documents in response to the
Plaintiff may only use any documents or information receives in response to a
subpoena for the purpose of prosecuting its infringement claims in this action.
Plaintiff may not engage in any additional discovery in this action prior to
conducting a Rule 26(f) conference unless the discovery is authorized by an order of this court
or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: September 6, 2017.
Dated: September 11, 2017
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Robert T. Numbers, II
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?