TCYK, LLC v. Doe 1-37

Filing 7

ORDER re 6 MOTION to Quash: The movant shall submit for filing a signed copy of the Motion to Quash which contains the information required by Rule 11(a) within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 9/18/2013. (er1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TCYK, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 2:13-cv-688
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

JOHN DOES 1-37,
Defendants.
ORDER
This is a copyright action in which plaintiff alleges that
defendants copied and distributed plaintiff’s copyrighted work, the
motion picture “The Company You Keep.”

Complaint, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 5.

Defendants are currently identified only by IP addresses.
attached to Complaint.

Exhibit B,

On the same day that the Complaint, Doc. No.

1, was filed, plaintiff also filed an ex parte motion seeking to
conduct limited, expedited discovery of non-party internet service
providers in order to determine the identities of defendants.
No. 3.

Doc.

Specifically, plaintiff sought leave to serve a subpoena

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 on certain ISPs in order to discover
the name, address(es), telephone number(s), e-mail address(es), and
Media Access Control (“MAC”) addresses of each Doe defendant whom
plaintiff has identified to date (as well as those whom plaintiff may
identify in the future).

Id. at pp. 20-21.

This Court granted

plaintiff’s ex parte motion, concluding that plaintiff had established
good cause because it could not meet its service obligation under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4 without the requested discovery.

Order, Doc. No. 4, pp.

1-2.
This matter is now before the Court for consideration of a motion
to quash and to sever filed by “John Doe.”
6.

Motion to Quash, Doc. No.

This movant argues that the claims against each Doe defendant

should be severed, and that the subpoena issued to the movant’s ISP
pursuant to this Court’s order should be quashed because (1) the
movant’s internet was not password protected and an unauthorized user
may have committed the alleged copyright infringement, (2) revealing
the movant’s name will cause an “undue burden” and “result[] in the
invasion of the [movant’s] privacy,” and (3) the subpoena seeks
irrelevant information because identification of the Doe defendants by
IP address does not identify the identity of the alleged copyright
infringers.

Id. at pp. 1-4.

This order is being issued to address

problems presented by the Motion to Quash.
First, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 provides the requirements for a party’s
filings with the Court:
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be
signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's
name—or
by
a
party
personally
if
the
party
is
unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address,
e-mail address, and telephone number. . . . The court must
strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly
corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s
attention.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).

The signing requirement is important for,

among other reasons, the representations that accompany it concerning
the basis for the claims, defenses, or statements made in the paper
being filed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), which, if untrue, can lead to
the imposition of sanctions against the filer under Rule 11(c).
2

In the case presently before the Court, the Motion to Quash, Doc.
No. 6, has been filed bearing only the typed “signature” of an
unidentified Doe defendant:
John Doe
John Doe
Pro se
Id. at p. 5.

It appears that the movant has intentionally withheld

his or her real name.

Consequently, the signature requirement of Rule

11(a) has not been satisfied.

The Court also notes that the movant

has not identified his or her email address, telephone number or IP
address.
The movant argues that revealing his or her name will result in
an “undue burden” and “invasion of the [movant’s] privacy.”
Quash, pp. 1-2.

Motion to

The Court does not, however, construe the argument as

a sufficient request to proceed anonymously in this action.1

Allowing

a party to proceed pseudonymously is the exception and not the rule.
Citizens for a Strong Ohio v. Marsh, 123 F. App’x 630, 636 (6th Cir.
2005).

In order to proceed anonymously, a party must show that the

need for doing so substantially outweighs the general presumption that
a party’s identity is public information; the party must also show
that the need for privacy substantially outweighs the risk of
unfairness to the opposing party.

E.E.O.C. v. Care Centers Mgmt.

Consulting, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-207, 2012 WL 4215748, at *3 n.2 (E.D.
1

The Court also notes that similar arguments made in related cases have been
determined by this Court to be insufficient to justify a motion to quash a
subpoena. See TCYK, LLC v. John Does 1-47, No. 2:13-cv-539, 2013 WL 4805022
(S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2013) (denying a motion to quash a subpoena for expedited
discovery); TCYK, LLC v. John Does 1-9, No. 2:13-cv-536, 2013 WL 4719048
(S.D. Ohio Sept. 3, 2013) (denying a motion to quash a subpoena for expedited
discovery and to sever the claims against each Doe defendant).

3

Tenn. Sept. 18, 2012).

Even a desire to avoid persistent contact by a

plaintiff has been found to be an inadequate basis for allowing a
party to proceed anonymously.

See, e.g., Malibu Media, LLC v. John

Does 1-13, No. CV 12-1156(JFB)(ETB), 2012 WL 2325588, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.
June 19, 2012).
Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of this order, the movant
shall submit for filing a signed copy of the Motion to Quash which
contains the information required by Rule 11(a).

Alternatively, the

movant may file, within fourteen (14) days, a motion to proceed
anonymously.

To the extent that the movant has reasons for seeking

protection of his or her identity from disclosure, he or she may
submit the motion under seal and request leave to proceed with the
motion ex parte.

The movant’s failure to respond to this order as

directed may result in an order striking the Motion to Quash.

September 18, 2013

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

4