TCYK, LLC v. John Does 1-14

Filing 11

ORDER re: 8 and 9 Anonymous Objections to Subpoenas. To the extent that Doe defendants have filed objections seeking to quash subpoenas issued by plaintiff to their internet service providers, those objections and motions are DENIED. To the exten t that objections by Doe defendants were intended to seek a protective order maintaining the confidentiality of a Doe defendant's identity, those objections are GRANTED. This order applies to all Doe defendants in this lawsuit, including those who have not filed objections or motions to quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 8/19/2013. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W ISCONSIN

TCYK, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
13-cv-295-slc

DOES 1-14,
Defendants.

In this civil lawsuit, plaintiff TCYK has alleged that defendants Does 1 - 14 have violated
plaintiff’s copyright on the motion picture “The Company You Keep.” Currently before the
court is a terse objection to this subpoena from a Doe defendant who does not further identify
himself/herself (for instance, by Doe number) (dkt. 8), along with a longer “vehement” objection
from Doe Defendant Number 12, who does not want his/her personal identifying information
disclosed by the ISP to plaintiff (dkt. 9)
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 the Doe defendants have filed objections that
seek to quash the subpoena issued by plaintiff to their internet
service provider in this lawsuit, those objections and motions are
DENIED.

(2)

To the extent that these objections by Doe defendants were
intended to seek a protective order maintaining the confidentiality
of a Doe defendant’s identity, those objections are 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