Malibu Media LLC v. Doe
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Aaron E Goodstein on 6/12/2013 granting 2 Motion for expedited discovery. (cc: all counsel) (djo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Case No. 13-CV-545
Subscriber assigned IP address 18.104.22.168,
ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
Currently pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to serve a third party subpoena
prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. (Docket No. 2.) Having reviewed the motion and accompanying
exhibits, the court shall grant the motion to serve a third party subpoena on the internet service
provider (“ISP”) listed on Exhibit A to the complaint.
“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as
required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule
26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
“A court has wide discretion in managing the discovery process.” Ibarra v. City of Chicago,
816 F. Supp. 2d 541, 554 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (citing Merrill Lynch v. O'Connor, 194 F.R.D. 618, 623
(N.D. Ill. 2000)). Although different standards exist for the evaluation of expedited discovery
requests, district courts within the Seventh Circuit generally will grant a motion for expedited
discovery after evaluating “the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in
light of all the surrounding circumstances.” Id. at 554 (quoting Merrill Lynch, 194 F.R.D. at 624).
This amounts to a requirement that the movant show good cause for the request. Sheridan v. Oak St.
Mortg., LLC, 244 F.R.D. 520, 522 (E.D. Wis. 2007).
The court concludes that the plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to conduct limited
discovery directed at determining the identity of the John Doe defendant. See Ibarra, 816 F. Supp. at
555 (granting motion to conduct discovery narrowly tailored to assist plaintiff in identifying the
John Doe defendants). This case cannot move forward unless the defendant’s true identity is
ascertained, and there is no alternative means to obtain the defendant’s true identity. The plaintiff’s
proposed order included a provision whereby the court would bar the ISP from requiring the
plaintiff from having to pay any fee up-front. The plaintiff offers no authority for the imposition of
such a prohibition, and therefore the court shall not so order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery, (Docket No. 2), is granted.
2. The plaintiff may serve the ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to provide
Plaintiff with the true name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of the Defendant
to whom the ISP assigned an IP address as set forth on Exhibit A to the Complaint. Plaintiff
shall attach to any such subpoena a copy of this Order.
3. The 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. If the ISP qualifies as a “cable operator,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it shall send a
copy of this order to the defendant in compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B).
5. The plaintiff may use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena served on
the ISP only for the purpose of protecting and enforcing plaintiff’s rights as set forth in its
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 12th day of June, 2013.
AARON E. GOODSTEIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge
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?