Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16

Filing 6

ORDER entered GRANTING 4 Ex Parte MOTION for Discovery (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

DOES 1–16,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

August 23, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-2244

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD-PARTY
SUBPOENA BEFORE RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE
In this copyright infringement case, Venice PI, LLC has filed an ex parte motion for leave
to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference.1 (Docket Entry No. 4). Venice
PI seeks expedited limited discovery from an internet service provider to obtain identifying
information for Does 1–16 in this case. Based on the motion and the evidence, the court grants the
motion for leave to serve the subpoena.
A plaintiff must show good cause to obtain an order identifying the accounts associated with
internet protocol addresses. This requires: “(1) a concrete showing of a prima facie claim of
actionable harm by the plaintiff; (2) specificity of the discovery request; (3) the absence of
alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information; (4) a central need for the subpoenaed
information to advance the claim; and (5) [consideration of] the user’s expectation of privacy.” Well
Go USA, Inc., v. Unknown Participants, 2012 WL 4387420 at *1 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (citing Arista

1

Rule 26(d)(1) states that “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred
as required by Rule 26(f)” unless the court orders otherwise.

Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2010)).
Venice PI asserts that Maverickeye UG—an internet-monitoring company—detected
distribution of Venice PI’s copyrighted work “Once Upon a Time in Venice” by the defendants’ IP
addresses, infringing Venice PI’s copyright. (Docket Entry No. 4; Docket Entry No. 1, Ex. 2).
Venice PI has been able to identify the defendants only by their IP addresses. (Docket Entry No.
1). Venice PI wants to subpoena AT&T Internet Services, the defendants’ internet service provider,
to get enough information to identify the defendants by name and address. Venice PI has shown
good cause to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T Internet Services. See Davis v. Duncan Energy
Partners L.P., 801 F.Supp.2d 589, 596 (S.D. Tex. 2011).
Venice PI’s ex parte motion, (Docket Entry No. 4), is granted to the following extent and
with the following conditions and limits:
(1)

In accordance with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, Venice PI may serve the
requested subpoena on AT&T Internet Services for the names and current address
concerning the defendants identified by the following IP addresses:
99.71.152.113
99.7.196.46
104.14.190.174
99.130.112.161
107.199.51.54
69.155.109.26
104.48.181.223
162.239.218.33
108.73.181.117
162.230.172.10
162.230.173.71
108.222.244.77
45.25.26.13
45.23.129.5
45.19.56.161
70.255.178.150

No telephone numbers are to be produced.
(2)

In addition to serving the subpoena, Venice PI must serve AT&T Internet Services
with a copy of its motion, exhibits, and this order.

(3)

AT&T Internet Services must comply with the subpoena by serving the defendants
with copies of the subpoena and this order within 30 days after receiving the

subpoena

from Venice PI. AT&T Internet Services may use reasonable means of

service,

including written notice sent to the last known address using either first-class

mail

or overnight service.
(4)

Within 30 days after receiving a copy of the subpoena and this order, the defendants
may file any motion with this court to quash the subpoena or to proceed
anonymously.

AT&T Internet Services may not turn over the defendants’

identifying information to Venice PI until this 30-day period expires. If a defendant
files a motion to quash or modify the subpoena, AT&T Internet Services may not
turn over any identifying information to Venice PI until this court rules on the
defendants’ motion. If a defendant moves to quash or proceed anonymously, he or
she must immediately notify AT&T Internet Services so that AT&T Internet Services
is on notice not to release that defendant’s information until the court rules on such
motions.
(5)

If the 30-day period lapses without a defendant contesting the subpoena, AT&T
Internet Services will have 14 days to produce the subpoenaed information to Venice
PI.

(6)

Venice PI must serve each defendant with copies of all materials and information

obtained about him or her.
(7)

Any information disclosed to Venice PI in response to the subpoena may be used by
Venice PI solely for the purpose of protecting its rights as set forth in its complaint.

(8)

Upon receipt of the subpoena, AT&T Internet Services must preserve all subpoenaed
information pending the resolution of any timely filed motion to quash.

(9)

Venice PI must reimburse AT&T Internet Services for reasonable costs incurred
in producing the requested information if AT&T Internet Services provides Venice
PI with a detailed invoice setting out the work performed.

SIGNED on August 23, 2017, at Houston, Texas.

______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judge