ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does
Filing
8
ORDER granting 4 MOTION for Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 2/9/2017. (nvc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
Case No.: 5:16-cv-00206-RLV-DSC
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-12,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
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:
ORDER, ADJUDGE, and DECREE:
1.
Plaintiff has established good cause for the issuance of subpoenas to the Internet
Service Providers (the “ISPs”) identified in Exhibit B 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), may comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) 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 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: February 9, 2017
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?