Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 3:18-CV-1220. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
Number: infdco20181012b41
Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOC. NO. 13) JANET C. HALL , District Judge . The defendant's Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED. The defendant John Doe appears to want to have this case decided at this point in the litigation, based on plaintiff's practice of hiring an investigator to gather IP addresses, and without discovery. If the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's copyright rights,
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOC. NO. 13) JANET C. HALL , District Judge . The defendant's Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED. The defendant John Doe appears to want to have this case decided at this point in the litigation, based on plaintiff's practice of hiring an investigator to gather IP addresses, and without discovery. If the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's copyright rights, t..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(DOC. NO. 13)
JANET C. HALL, District Judge.
The defendant's Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED. The defendant John Doe appears to want to have this case decided at this point in the litigation, based on plaintiff's practice of hiring an investigator to gather IP addresses, and without discovery. If the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's copyright rights, then plaintiff will lose on the merits of the case. Defendant also argues that plaintiff has obtained information "illegally" and is paying an expert for his testimony. The court does not understand the first argument, and the second appears at this stage to be groundless: plaintiff has hired an investigator to gather IP addresses, not to testify. Finally, the court will not decide defendant's claims of "illegal wiretap" or failure to be licensed in the context of a Motion to Quash.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
