TCYK, LLC v. John Does 1-99

Filing 39

ORDER denying 11 , 18 , 21 and 24 Motions 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)

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

TCYK, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
13-cv-300-slc

DOES 1-99,
Defendants.

In this civil lawsuit, plaintiff TCYK has alleged that defendants Does 1 - 99 have violated
plaintiff’s copyright on the motion picture “The Company You Keep.” Currently before the
court are five motions to quash and nine objections from six identified Doe defendants (Does
Numbered 42, 64, 71, 78 , 85 and 99) and eight different but otherwise undifferentiated Doe
defendants. See dkts. 11-12, 14-16, 18-24, 33 and 38. These motions and objections run the
gamut from terse placeholders (e.g., dkt. 14) to carefully organized legal briefs with case citations.
(e.g., dkts. 18, 21).
On August 13, 2013, Chief Judge William M. Conley entered orders addressing the
issues here 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 and
motions 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 and motions by Doe
defendants were intended to seek a protective order maintaining
the confidentiality of a Doe defendant’s identity, those objections
and motions 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