TCYK, LLC v. Does 1-15
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 11 Motion for Protective Order; denying 13 Motion to Quash; denying 14 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
TCYK, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-15,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:13-CV-257
(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 are two motions to quash and/or motions for protective order filed
by pro se defendants [Docs. 11 and 14] and a Motion to Quash Subpoena Served Upon
Custodian of Records, Comcast Cable, and Memorandum of Authorities [Doc. 13], filed by
counsel for a Doe Defendant.1 The Plaintiff has responded in opposition to these motions.
[Docs. 15, 16]. The Court has considered the parties’ positions and the applicable law, and the
Court finds that the motions are not well-taken. See Killer Joe Nevada v. Does, Case No. 3:13CV-217, Memorandum and Order (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 28, 2013).
The Court finds, first, that the Doe Defendants do 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).
1
Counsel purports to represent “Doe No. 1-15,” which appears to be an error combining the caption’s reference to
“Does 1-15,” which refers to Doe No. 1, Doe No. 2, et seq.
Further, the Court finds that the Doe Defendants have not demonstrated that the
subpoenas 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 Defendants, because it does not call upon them to produce any documents or present
testimony. Moreover, there is little threat of disclosure of confidential information, because
“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 1-4,577, 736
F.Supp.2d 212 (D.D.C. 2010)).
In addition, the Court finds that the Doe Defendants have 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 Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the subpoena imposes a
burden upon them.
The Doe Defendants have 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, and
again, case law holds there is no privacy interest in such information. See id. Because the Doe
Defendants have 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.
Finally, the Court finds that to the extent the Doe Defendants argue actual innocence, the
Court finds that there is no basis for quashing a subpoena or issuing a protective order based
upon a general denial of liability. See First Time Videos, 276 F.R.D. at 250. “A general denial
2
of liability is not relevant as to the validity or enforceability of a subpoena, but rather should be
presented and contested once parties are brought properly into the suit.”
Id.
The Doe
Defendants may deny their liability once served with process in this case through appropriate
pleadings, motions, or evidence at trial. A motion to quash is not the forum for addressing
general denials of liability.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the motions to quash and/or motions for protective
order [Docs. 11, 13, 14] are not well-taken, and they are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge
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?