TCYK, LLC v. John Does 1-99

Filing 10

ORDER on Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 5/15/2013. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF \VISCONSIN

)
)
) Case No.: 13-cv-300
)
)

TCYK,LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.

)
)

DOES 1- 99,

)
)
)

Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE
THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS PRIOR TO A RULE 26(0 CONFERENCE
TillS CAUSE came before the Comi upon Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Selve
Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(1) Conference (the "Motion"), and the COl.m
being duly advised in the preluises does hereby:

FIND, ORDER AND ADJUDGE:
1. Plaintiff established that "good cause" exists for it to serve third party subpoenas
on the Inteluet Selvice Providers listed on Exhibit A to the Motion (the "ISPs").
See UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 4104214, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008); and
Arista Records LtC v. Does 1-19,551 F. Supp. 2d 1,6-7 (D.D.C. 2008).
2. Plaintiff may serve each of the ISPs with a Rule 45 subpoena cOlmnanding each
ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name, address, telephone llmnber, e-mail
address and Media Access Control ("MAC") address of the Defendant to whom
the ISP assigned an IP address. as set forth on Exhibit A to the Motion. Plaintiff
I

shall attach to any such subpoena a copy of this Order.

3. Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the sanle 111allUer as above on any
service provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of
inteluet services to one of the Defendants.
4. Each of the ISPs that qualify
522(5), which states:
the

term

"cable

operator"

as

a "cable operator," as defined by 47 U.S.C. §

l11eans

any

person

or

group

of persons

(A) who provides cable service over a cable systell1 and directly or through
one or U10re affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable systenl, or
(B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangelnent,
the nlallageluent and operation of such a cable systel11
shall COlllply with 47 U.S.C. § 55 1(c)(2)(B), which states:
A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying] infolmation if the
disclosure is ... made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure, if
the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the order is
directed.
by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant.
5. The subpoenaed ISPs shall not require Plaintiff to pay a fee in advance of
providing the subpoenaed infonnation; nor shall the subpoenaed ISPs require
Plaintiff to pay a fee for an IF address that is not controlled by such ISP, or for
duplicate IF addresses that resolve to the Salne individual, or for an IP address that
does not provide the 113.1116 of a unique individual, or for dIe ISP's internal costs to
notify its cust0111ers. Ifnecessary, the Court shall resolve any disputes between the
ISPs and Plaintiff regarding the reasonableness of the al110unt proposed to be
charged by the ISP after the subpoenaed information is provided to Plaintiff.
6. If any particular Doe Defendant has been voluntarily disillissed then any lllotion
filed by said Defendant objecting to the disclosure of his or her identifying

infonuation is hereby denied as moot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
applicable ISP shall withhold the moving Defendant's identifying illfonuatioll

fi-oin Plaintiff wlless and until Plaintiff obtains a subsequent court order
authorizing the disclosure.
7.

Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena
served on an ISP for the purpose of protecting and enforcing Plaintiffs rights as set
forth in its Complaint.

_nf-

DONE AND ORDERED this

E.- day of n,r:

,2013.

B~~ISTRICT

JUDGE