Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1 - 25
Filing
6
ORDER granting 3 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.
Docs 1-25,
Defendants.
THIRD
)
)
) Case: No.3: 14-ev-00493-sle
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE
PARTY SUBPOENAS PRIOR TO A RULE 26<0 CONFERENCE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs
Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party
Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (the "Motion"),
and the Court being duly advised in
the premises docs hereby:
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"). Sec UMG
Recording, Inc. v. Doc, 2008 WL 4104214, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008); and Arista Records LLC
v. Docs 1-19,551
2.
F. Supp. 2d 1,6-7 (D.D.C. 2008).
Plaintiff may serve each of the ISPs with a Rulc 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 serve a Rule 45 subpocna in the same manner 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 U.S.c.
S 522(5),
which statcs:
the term "cablc opcrator" means any person or group of persons
(A) who provides cable servicc ovcr a cable systcm and directly or through one or
more affiliates owns a significant intcrcst in such cable system, or
(E) who otherwisc controls or is responsible
the management
for, through any arrangement,
and operation of such a eable system
shall comply with 47 U.S.c.
S
55 I(c)(2)(B), which states:
A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying]
information
if the disclosure
is ... madc pursuant to a court ordcr authorizing such disclosure, if the subseriber is
notified of such ordcr by the person to whom thc order is directed.
by scnding a copy of this Order to the Defendant.
5. The subpoenaed
ISPs shall not require Plaintiff to pay a fee in advance of
providing thc subpoenaed
information;
nor shall the subpoena cd ISPs require Plaintiff to
pay a fee for an IP addrcss that is not controlled by such ISP, or for duplicate IP addresscs
that resolve to the samc individual, or for an IP address that does not provide thc name of
a unique individual, or for the ISP's internal costs to notify its customers. If necessary, the
Court shall resolve any disputcs between the ISPs and Plaintiff regarding the
reasonableness
information
ofthc amount proposed to be charged by the ISP after the subpoenaed
is provided to Plaintiff.
6. If any particular Doe Defendant has been voluntarily dismissed thcn any motion filed by
said Defendant objecting to thc disclosure of his or her identifying information
denicd 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 ordcr 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.
. ..,_n~
DONE AND ORDERED this _'1 day of
Jvrr
By
,2014;(
:JtflA~_
_
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
f'Yt61:r~rr.
•
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?