Venice PI, LLC v. Does

Filing 7

ORDER on 5 Motion for Leave to take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 7/29/2017. (nvc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION

VENICE PI, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-11,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

5:17-CV-128-RLV-DSC

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 2 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 2 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.

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.
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
2

set forth in its Complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 29, 2017

3