Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-16
Filing
15
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 7/25/14. (jat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
14-cv-235-slc
DOES 1-16,
Defendants.
In this civil lawsuit, plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, has alleged that defendants Does 1 16 have violated plaintiff’s copyright on the motion picture “The Dallas Buyers Club.” Before the
court is a relatively anonymous letter1 objecting to plaintiff’s subpoena to the Doe defendants’
internet service providers to learn the identity of the Doe defendants in this lawsuit. See dkt. 9.
Last summer, 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.
1
The objecting party does not include his/her name but has included enough information that
his/her identity likely could be ascertained upon investigation. The court is not going to investigate.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1)
To the extent that a Doe defendant has filed an objection that is
intended to quash the subpoena issued by plaintiff to an internet
service provider in this lawsuit, that motion is DENIED.
(2)
To the extent that this objection 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 25th day of July, 2014.
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?