DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC v. JOHN DOES, 14-C-0359. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20140721c13
Filed: Jul. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2014
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge. This is an action for copyright infringement in which the plaintiff alleges that several unknown individuals illegally copied the motion picture The Dallas Buyers Club. Shortly after filing the complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion to serve a subpoena on the defendants' Internet service providers prior to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference in order to obtain the defendants' names and addresses. I granted that motion. Recen
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge. This is an action for copyright infringement in which the plaintiff alleges that several unknown individuals illegally copied the motion picture The Dallas Buyers Club. Shortly after filing the complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion to serve a subpoena on the defendants' Internet service providers prior to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference in order to obtain the defendants' names and addresses. I granted that motion. Recent..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge.
This is an action for copyright infringement in which the plaintiff alleges that several unknown individuals illegally copied the motion picture The Dallas Buyers Club. Shortly after filing the complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion to serve a subpoena on the defendants' Internet service providers prior to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference in order to obtain the defendants' names and addresses. I granted that motion. Recently, one of the defendants filed a motion to quash the subpoena that plaintiff served on his service provider. In filing the motion to quash, the defendant disclosed his name and address, which is the only information that I allowed the plaintiff to obtain through use of the subpoenas.1 Thus, the plaintiff now has all the information it needs to serve the defendant with process. The motion to quash will be granted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion to quash is GRANTED.
FootNotes
1. It appears that the subpoena the plaintiff served on the Internet service provider asks for information other than the defendant's name and address. However, I did not grant plaintiff permission to request this additional information.
Source: Leagle
