ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH

(Docket Nos. 23, 39)

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Defendant John Doe associated with IP Address 24.7.26.2041 has filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued by Plaintiff Hard Drive Productions, Inc. Docket No. 23 ("Motion"). Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Spero's report and recommendation and Plaintiff's objections to the report and recommendation, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to quash.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a producer and distributor of adult entertainment. Compl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff originally brought this suit against 46 Doe Defendants, alleging that Doe Defendants used the Peer-to-Peer media distribution system BitTorrent to download and distribute Plaintiff's copyrighted works. Compl. ¶ 23.

In April 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to serve Rule 45 subpoenas upon the Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") identified in the Complaint. Docket No. 8. The subpoenas sought information identifying each Defendant based on the supplied IP addresses, including name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and Media Access Control address. Docket No. 8. A motion to quash and/or vacate the subpoena was filed by Doe Defendant associated with IP address 24.7.26.204. Docket No. 23. In this motion, Doe Defendant challenged the subpoena on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, undue burden, and denial of liability. Docket No. 23 ¶¶ 5, 7. The motion was referred to Judge Spero, who found that "challenges based on the possible lack of personal jurisdiction are premature, that compliance with the subpoena by the ISP would not constitute an undue burden, and that denial of liability is not a basis for quashing a subpoena." Docket No. 39 at 1 ("R&R"). However, Judge Spero recommended that Doe Defendant's motion be granted because of improper joinder. R&R at 2.

Plaintiff dismissed all Doe defendants except Doe Defendant associated with IP address 24.7.26.204. Docket No. 30. On this basis, Plaintiff objected to the R&R, arguing that misjoinder was no longer a basis for granting Doe's motion to quash. Docket No. 41.

II. DISCUSSION

The Court agrees with Judge Spero that a challenge based on lack of personal jurisdiction is premature (see Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does, No. 10-455 (BAH), 10-569 (BAH). 10-1520 (BAH0, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29153, at *27-32 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2011)), that "the merits of this case are not relevant to the issue of whether the subpoena is valid and enforceable" (Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does, No. 10-0873 (BAH), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50787, at *18-20 (D.D.C. May 12, 2011)), and that being named a defendant in a case does not in and of itself constitute an undue burden such that the subpoena should be quashed.

As to Judge Spero's finding of improper joinder, Plaintiff's dismissal of all other Defendants other than Doe Defendant herein renders that issue moot. Improper joinder is no longer a basis to grant the motion to quash.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Doe Defendant's motion to quash. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on Defendant John Doe associated with IP Address 24.7.26.204.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 23 and 39.

IT IS SO ORDERED.