ORDER

JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon pro se Defendant Doe 6's Motion to Quash Subpoena (Dkt. 7), to which Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC has responded in opposition (Dkt. 8). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and record, and being otherwise advised of the premises, concludes that Defendant's motion should be denied.

Plaintiff filed this action for direct and contributory copyright infringement, alleging that Defendant unlawfully copied and distributed Plaintiff's motion picture, The Dallas Buyers Club, using BitTorrent file-sharing software (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff identified the internet protocol address for Defendant, from which the allegedly infringing conduct occurred. On June 20, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff's request for issuance of a non-party subpoena to Defendant's internet service provider to ascertain Defendant's true identity (Dkt. 5).

In the instant motion, Defendant seeks to quash the third-party subpoena, arguing that he did not participate in the alleged infringing activity. Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the grounds on which a court may quash a subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). Even assuming that Defendant has standing to contest the third-party subpoena, Defendant has not asserted that any of the Rule 45 grounds apply. Defendant also fails to demonstrate any grounds for a protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as he does not allege annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Defendant's arguments are more appropriately raised in a responsive pleading or motion to dismiss, once Plaintiff effects service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)-(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)-(h).

It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Doe 6's Motion to Quash Subpoena (Dkt. 7) is denied.

DONE and ORDERED.