Filed: Jul. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2013
Summary: ORDER ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge. It appears to the Court, based on its consideration of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC., in its Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference and for a Continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference, that its Motion is well-taken and therefore should be granted. Plaintiff should be permitted to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISPs it has identified as of this date, and those it identifies in the futu
Summary: ORDER ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge. It appears to the Court, based on its consideration of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC., in its Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference and for a Continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference, that its Motion is well-taken and therefore should be granted. Plaintiff should be permitted to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISPs it has identified as of this date, and those it identifies in the futur..
More
ORDER
ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge.
It appears to the Court, based on its consideration of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC., in its Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference and for a Continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference, that its Motion is well-taken and therefore should be granted. Plaintiff should be permitted to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISPs it has identified as of this date, and those it identifies in the future, so that the ISPs can divulge the true name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and MAC address of each Doe Defendant that Plaintiff has identified to date, and those it identifies in the future, during the course of this litigation. Further, to the extent that any ISP, in turn, identifies a different entity as the ISP providing network access and online services to the Doe Defendants, the Order should permit Plaintiff to serve, on any such later identified ISP, limited discovery sufficient to identify the Doe Defendant prior to the Rule 26 conference.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference is hereby GRANTED and the Rule 26(f) Conference stayed to permit Plaintiff to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISPs it has identified as of this date, and those it identifies in the future, so that the ISPs can divulge the true name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and MAC address of each Doe Defendant that Plaintiff has identified to date, and those it identifies in the future, during the course of this litigation.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that to the extent that any ISP, in turn, identifies a different entity as the ISP providing network access and online services to the Doe Defendants, the Order should permit Plaintiff to serve, on any such later identified ISP, limited discovery sufficient to identify the Doe Defendant prior to the Rule 26(f) conference.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT that Plaintiff will only use the information obtain through this grant of discovery authority to prosecute its claims in this lawsuit and for no other purpose.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Initial Case Management Conference shall be continued, to be reset upon motion of the Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
