TCYK, LLC v. John Does 1-10

Filing 19

ORDER re: 15 Anonymous Objection to Release of Account Information by Doe Defendant #4. To the extent that Doe Defendant #4 has filed an objection seeking to quash the subpoena issued by plaintiff to his/her internet service provider, that objectio n is DENIED. To the extent that this objection is intended to seek a protective order maintaining the confidentiality of this Doe defendant's identity, that objection is 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-297-slc

DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

In this civil lawsuit, plaintiff TCYK has alleged that defendants Does 1 - 10 have violated
plaintiff’s copyright on the motion picture “The Company You Keep.” Currently before the
court is an objection to this subpoena from Doe Defendant Number 4 (dkt. 15).
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 Doe Defendant Number 4 has filed an
objection that seeks to quash the subpoena issued by plaintiff to
his/her internet service provider in this lawsuit, that objection is
DENIED.

(2)

To the extent that this objection is intended to seek a protective
order maintaining the confidentiality of this Doe defendant’s
identity, that objection 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