UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filing
7
ORDER granting 4 Motion for leave to take Discovery prior to rule 26(f) conference. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 7/20/2017. (eef)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
UN42 Productions, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-11,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:17-CV-284
)
)
)
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE DISCOVERY PRIOR
TO RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE
This cause came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery
Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference (the “Motion”). The Court, having reviewed the Motion and the
Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion, does hereby:
FIND, ORDER, ADJUDGE, and DECREE:
1.
Plaintiff has established good cause for the issuance of subpoena(s) to the Internet
Service Provider(s) (the “ISPs”) identified in Exhibit C of the Complaint.
2.
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.
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 that qualify as a “cable operator,” as defined by 47
U.S.C. § 522(5), which states:
the term “cable operator” means any person or group of persons
(A) who provides cable services over a cable system and directly or through one or
more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or
(B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the
management and operation of such cable system.
shall comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(b), which states:
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.
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 the 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
ISP’s internal costs to notify its
2
customers. If necessary, the Court shall resolve any disputes between the ISPs and Plaintiff
regarding the reasonableness of the amount proposed to be charged by the ISP after the
subpoenaed information is provided to Plaintiff.
6.
Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena
served on an ISP for the purpose of protecting and enforcing Plaintiff’s rights as set forth in its
Complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 20, 2017
3
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?