R&D Film 1, LLC v. John Does 1-11

Filing 13

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Quash subpoena. The internet service providers are to provide the identity of the Doe defendants to plaintiff's counsel on an attorney's eyes only basis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 8/19/13. (rep)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W ISCONSIN R & D Film 1, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ORDER 13-cv-279-bbc DOES 1-11, Defendants. In this civil lawsuit, plaintiff R & D Film 1, LLC has alleged that defendants Does 1 - 11 have violated plaintiff’s copyright on the motion picture “The Divide. Currently before the court is a motion from Doe defendant No. 5 objecting to plaintiff’s subpoena to the Doe defendants’ internet service provider to learn the identity of the Doe defendants in this lawsuit. See dkt. 11. On August 13, 2013, Chief Judge William M. Conley entered orders addressing these same issues in two similar cases: Breaking Glass Pictures, LLC v. Does 1 - 15, 13-cv-275 wmc (dkt. 12) and TCYK, LLC v. Does 1- 13, 13-cv-296 (dkt. 14). I agree with and adopt the court’s reasoning and conclusions in those two orders. As a result, no Doe defendant is entitled to have plaintiff’s subpoena to an ISP quashed, but each Doe defendant is entitled to have his/her identity sealed and maintained in confidence pending further order of this court in this case. This order applies to all Doe defendants in this lawsuit, including those who have not filed objections or motions to quash. ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) To the extent that a Doe defendant (“Charter ID # 5") has filed a motion to quash any subpoena issued by plaintiff to an internet service provider in this lawsuit, that motion is DENIED. (2) To the extent that this motion was intended to seek a protective order maintaining the confidentiality of a Doe defendant’s identity, that motion is GRANTED. (3) The internet service providers who have been served subpoenas seeking the identity of Doe defendants in this lawsuit shall comply with these subpoenas on a confidential basis to plaintiff’s counsel– on an attorney’s eyes only basis for now–and to each Doe defendant separately and individually. (4) Plaintiff’s attorneys are prohibited from disclosing any identifying information of any Doe defendant except in a document filed under seal with the court, unless plaintiff first obtains express leave from this court. Entered this 19th day of August, 2013. \ BY THE COURT: /s/ STEPHEN L. CROCKER 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?