Georgia Film Fund Four, LLC v. Does 1-16
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 8 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 02/28/2014. (KAW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
GEORGIA FILM FUND FOUR, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-16,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:13-CV-186
(VARLAN/GUYTON)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is a motion to quash filed by a pro se defendant [Docs. 8]. The
Plaintiff has responded in opposition to this motion. [Doc. 9]. The Court has considered the
parties’ positions and the applicable law, and the Court finds that the motion is not well-taken.
See Killer Joe Nevada v. Does, Case No. 3:13-CV-217, Memorandum and Order (E.D. Tenn.
Oct. 28, 2013).
The Court finds, first, that the Doe Defendant does not have standing to object to the
subpoenas served upon third-party internet service providers. See Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
Chesley Co. L.P.A. v. Davis, 2013 WL 146362, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2013); First Time
Videos v. Does 1-500, 276 F.R.D. 241 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
Further, the Court finds that the Doe Defendant has not demonstrated that the subpoena at
issue should be quashed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Specifically, the Court finds that the subpoena does not impose a burden upon the Doe
Defendant. In addition, the Court finds that the Doe Defendant has not demonstrated that the
Court should issue a protective order pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, because again, the Doe Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the subpoena
imposes a burden upon the Defendant.
Finally, the Doe Defendant has not cited the Court to any privilege – e.g. attorney-client,
doctor-patient – that protects a person’s name, address, or phone number from disclosure.
Moreover, “courts have consistently held that Internet subscribers do not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in their subscriber information – including name, address, phone number,
and email address – as they have already conveyed such information to their ISPs.” First Time
Videos, 276 F.R.D. at 247 (citing Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co. v. Does 14,577, 736 F.Supp.2d 212 (D.D.C. 2010)). Because the Doe Defendant has already shared the
information sought in the subpoena with the ISP for purposes of setting up their internet
subscription, the Court finds that this basic information is neither privileged nor protected.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the motion to quash [Doc. 8] is not well-taken, and it is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge
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?