Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1 - 20

Filing 7

ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave To Serve Third Party Subpoenas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 7/25/2014. (voc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.
Does 1-20,
Defendants.

THIRD

)
)
) Case: No. 3:14-ev-00492-wme
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEA VE TO SERVE
PARTY SUBPOENAS PRIOR TO A RULE 26
CONFERENCE

THIS CAUSE eame before the Court upon Plaintiffs

Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party

Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(1) Conference (the "Motion"),

and the Court being duly advised in

the premises does hercby:
FIND, ORDER

I.

AND ADJUDGE:

Plaintiff established that "good cause" exists for it to serve third party subpoenas on the
Internet Service Providers listed on Complaint Exhibit B (the "ISPs"). See UMG
Recording, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 41042 J 4, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008); and Arista Rccords LLC
v. Does 1-19,551

2.

F. Supp. 2d 1,6-7 (D.D.C. 2008).

Plaintiff may serve each of the ISPs with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding

each ISP to

provide Plaintiff with the true name and addrcss of the Defendant to whom the ISP
assigned an IP address as set forth on Complaint Exhibit B. Plaintiff shall attach to any
such subpoena a copy of this Order.

3. Plaintiff may also servc a Rule 45 subpocna in the same manncr as above on any service
provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of Internet services to
one of the Defendants.

4.

Each ofthc ISPs that qualify as a "cablc operator," as defined by 47 USC.

S 522(5),

which states:
the term "cable operator" means any person or group of persons

(A) who provides eable servicc over a cable systcm and directly or through one or
more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or

(B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangcmcnt,
the managemcnt

and operation of such a cable system

shall comply with 47 USc.

S 551(c)(2)(B),

which states:

A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying]

information

if the diselosure

is ... made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosurc, ifthc subscriber is
notified of such order by the person to whom thc order is directed.

by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant.

5. The subpoenaed

ISPs shall not rcquire Plaintiff to pay a fce in advance of

providing the subpoenaed

information;

nor shall the subpoenaed

ISPs require Plaintiff to

pay a fee for an IP address that is not controllcd by such ISP, or for duplicate IP addresses
that resolve to the same individual, or for an IP address that does not provide thc namc of
a unique individual, or for thc ISP's internal costs to notify its customers. Ifncccssary,
Court shall rcsolve any disputes bctween the ISPs and Plaintiffrcgarding
rcasonablcncss
information

6.

the

thc

of the amount proposcd to be charged by thc ISP after the subpocnaed

is providcd to Plaintiff.

Ifany particular Doe Defendant has been voluntarily dismissed then any motion filed by
said Defendant objecting to the disclosure of his or her identifying information
denied as moot. Notwithstanding
moving Defendant's

is hereby

the foregoing, the applicable ISP shall withhold the

identifying information

from Plaintiff unless 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 Plaintiff s rights as set forth in its
Complaint.

AI-!

,20jr

DONE AND ORDERED this1..'7 day of

By

"J1L~:Uz__

UNITED STATES DIS'i'ltlef JUDGE
~bfrft#"F