R & D FILM 1, LLC v. DOES 1-11, 13-cv-279-bbc. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20130820e17
Visitors: 16
Filed: Aug. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2013
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN L. CROCKER, Magistrate Judge. In this civil lawsuit, plaintiff R & D Film 1, LLC has alleged that defendants Does 1-11 have violated plaintiff's copyright on the motion picture "The Divide. Currently before the court is a motion from Doe defendant No. 5 objecting to plaintiff's subpoena to the Doe defendants' internet service provider to learn the identity of the Doe defendants in this lawsuit. See dkt. 11. On August 13, 2013, Chief Judge William M. Conley entered orders addre
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN L. CROCKER, Magistrate Judge. In this civil lawsuit, plaintiff R & D Film 1, LLC has alleged that defendants Does 1-11 have violated plaintiff's copyright on the motion picture "The Divide. Currently before the court is a motion from Doe defendant No. 5 objecting to plaintiff's subpoena to the Doe defendants' internet service provider to learn the identity of the Doe defendants in this lawsuit. See dkt. 11. On August 13, 2013, Chief Judge William M. Conley entered orders addres..
More
ORDER
STEPHEN L. CROCKER, Magistrate Judge.
In this civil lawsuit, plaintiff R & D Film 1, LLC has alleged that defendants Does 1-11 have violated plaintiff's copyright on the motion picture "The Divide. Currently before the court is a motion from Doe defendant No. 5 objecting to plaintiff's subpoena to the Doe defendants' internet service provider to learn the identity of the Doe defendants in this lawsuit. See dkt. 11.
On August 13, 2013, Chief Judge William M. Conley entered orders addressing these same issues in two similar cases: Breaking Glass Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-15, 13-cv-275 wmc (dkt. 12) and TCYK, LLC v. Does 1-13, 13-cv-296 (dkt. 14). I agree with and adopt the court's reasoning and conclusions in those two orders. As a result, no Doe defendant is entitled to have plaintiff's subpoena to an ISP quashed, but each Doe defendant is entitled to have his/her identity sealed and maintained in confidence pending further order of this court in this case. This order applies to all Doe defendants in this lawsuit, including those who have not filed objections or motions to quash.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) To the extent that a Doe defendant ("Charter ID # 5") has filed a motion to quash any subpoena issued by plaintiff to an internet service provider in this lawsuit, that motion is DENIED.
(2) To the extent that this motion was intended to seek a protective order maintaining the confidentiality of a Doe defendant's identity, that motion is GRANTED.
(3) The internet service providers who have been served subpoenas seeking the identity of Doe defendants in this lawsuit shall comply with these subpoenas on a confidential basis to plaintiff's counselon an attorney's eyes only basis for now-and to each Doe defendant separately and individually.
(4) Plaintiff's attorneys are prohibited from disclosing any identifying information of any Doe defendant except in a document filed under seal with the court, unless plaintiff first obtains express leave from this court.
Source: Leagle
