ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE (ECF NO. 2) and (2) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING (ECF NO. 5)

PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC's ("Malibu") Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference (ECF No. 2) and Motion for Expedited Hearing (ECF No. 5). Malibu filed suit on May 17, 2013 against a single "John Doe" Defendant, identified only by the subscriber Internet Protocol ("IP") address he is alleged to have used to unlawfully download and share Malibu's allegedly copyrighted movies.1 On the same day that it filed this action, Malibu filed this motion, seeking to discover the identity of the John Doe named in the Complaint by serving a subpoena on the Internet Service Provider ("ISP") associated with the identified IP address. Malibu seeks permission to subpoena the ISP to obtain John Doe's "true name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address."

F. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) provides: "A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule (26)(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order." In exercising the discretion granted by Rule 26(d)(1) to order early discovery, several courts in this District, and elsewhere across the country, have applied a good cause standard in similar file sharing cases to determine whether such discovery should be authorized. See Malibu Media, supra; Third Degree Films v. Does 1-36, No. 11-15200, ECF No. 5 (E.D. Mich. December 2, 2011); Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-23, No. 11-15231, ECF No. 4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2011); Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1 through 13, No. 12-01513, 2012 WL 2800123, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2012). In these copyright infringement cases, courts have further refined the "good cause" standard, permitting limited discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference related to the identity of a John Doe defendant where: "(1) the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of a copyright infringement claim; (2) the plaintiff submits a specific discovery request; (3) the information sought is limited in scope and not available through alternative means; and (4) there is a minimal expectation of privacy on the part of the defendant." Malibu Media, supra, ECF No. 7, at 2 (citing Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010); Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-15, No. 07-450, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97283 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007); Patrick Collins v. Does 1-21, No. 11-15232, Dkt. 5 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2011)).

In this case, the Court concludes that Malibu has demonstrated good cause for early discovery, pleading a plausible claim for copyright infringement and specifically identifying the information sought. As several courts have done in similar John Doe cases, the Court concludes that defendants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their IP addresses. Malibu Media, supra, No. 12-12202, ECF No. 7, at 2 (collecting cases). The information is also necessary, otherwise unavailable and the information sought, as modified by this Court's order,2 is narrowly tailored to the limited purpose of discovering the identity of the individual associated with the identified IP address.

Accordingly, Malibu's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

IT IS SO ORDERED.3