From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2,590

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
Nov 18, 2011
No. C 11-2766 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2011)

Opinion

No. C 11-2766 MEJ

11-18-2011

PATRICK COLLINS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-2,590, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

QUASH (DOE DEFENDANT NO. 2590)

Docket No. 22

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. filed this lawsuit against 2,590 Doe Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to Plaintiff's exclusive license, ("Real Female Orgasms 10"), using an internet peer-to-peer file sharing network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322. Compl. ¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 12. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve subpoenas on Does 1-2,590's Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") by serving a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including the name, address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs provided Does 1-2,590 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-2,590 30 days from the date of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the subpoena). Id.

Now before the Court is a Motion to Quash/Dismiss, filed by Doe Defendant No. 2590. Dkt. No. 22. Pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3), if a subpoena would cause undue burden to Defendant or requires the disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, it must be quashed. The subpoena, however, does not require any obligation from Defendant; rather, it was directed at the putative defendants' ISPs. As such, there is no undue burden. Further, as the subpoena seeks unprivileged contact information for the purpose of identifying Doe Defendants, the Court finds the subpoena necessary for Plaintiff to prosecute its case. Further, Plaintiff raises valid concerns in its response to the present motion, including the conflicting IP Addresses and ISPs named in the motion. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Maria-Elena James

Chief United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2,590

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
Nov 18, 2011
No. C 11-2766 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2011)
Case details for

Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2,590

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK COLLINS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-2,590, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California

Date published: Nov 18, 2011

Citations

No. C 11-2766 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2011)