Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Document 45
Filed 11/18/13
Page 1 of 4
ELF-MAN, LLC,
No. ORDER
1:13-cv-333-TC,
Plaintiff Elf-Man, LLC filed this and other similar actions in early 2013 asserting copyright infringement against 180 users of various BitTorrent clients, identified only by their internet
1 - ORDER
Case 1:13-cv-00333-TC
Document 45
Filed 11/18/13
Page 2 of 4
Elf-Man.
Plaintiff
obtained
permission
from
the
court
to
take
discovery, prior to a Rule 26 conference, allowing it to subpoena records from various internet service providers (ISPs) around the State to discover the identities of the BitTorrent users who joined in the distribution of the pieces of the movie Elf-Man. After
Various Doe defendants sought to quash, the court determined that joinder pursued. is inappropriate Consequently, and all that individual cases should be #1 were
Doe defendants
beyond Doe
severed in this case and all outstanding subpoenas were quashed. Plaintiff amended the complaint to name only Doe #1 and
although defendant Doe has filed an answer, defendant has refused to provide any address beyond a post office box or other
Plaintiff's attempt to contact defendant have gone unanswered. requiring defendant's Accordingly, ISP, Charter
of discovery an order
plaintiff
seeks
Communications, to release the subscriber information related to IP address 96.39.163.229 as of November 30, 2012 at 11:30:15 PM UTC. Plaintiff also seeks leave to issue any necessary further subpoenas to specifically identify defendant Doe and conduct necessary
discovery. Defendant, however, moves to quash asserting that plaintiff is attempting to misuse the court to "acquire victims for the sole
2 - ORDER
Case 1:13-cv-00333-TC
Document 45
Filed 11/18/13
Page 3 of 4
implies that mere identification of his IP address is insufficient to demonstrate copyright violation. The court, of course agrees, Without any further to the person
but that is why discovery must take place. identifying information and discovery
related
associated with the IP address, it can not be reasonably determined if that person such is responsible in the for the download at issue and
whether
download, Therefore,
fact, motion to
constitutes quash is
infringement. 2
plaintiff's motion for an order permitting Charter Communications to release to plaintiff the subscriber information associated with IP address 96.39.163.229 is allowed along with such further
discovery as is necessary.
Plaintiff "cites" an "attached settlement request," but provides no such documentation. Apparently, plaintiff is referring to previous court orders regarding similar cases in this court in which the court ordered severance. In those orders, the court was concerned with attempts to avoid filing fees and abuse court process by lumping large masses of bittorrent users into one case simply to issue demand letters to purported infringers in hopes of avoiding in-court litigation. That issue has already been addressed and resolved in this case by requiring plaintiff to file against alleged infringers individually. The allegations in the complaint are sufficient to make out a prima facie claim of copyright infringement conducted through the IP address at a specific time. In addition, as the court has previously determined, the discovery request's specificity is sufficient, there is an absence of alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information, and plaintiff has taken adequate steps to locate and identify defendant short of the ISP subpoena. 3 - ORDER
2
Case 1:13-cv-00333-TC
Document 45
Filed 11/18/13
Page 4 of 4
not adequately explained any compelling reasons for such an order, but plaintiff has no objection to a regarding filings. confidentiality Therefore, of temporary protective order identity in public
defendant's
subpoenaed information on Doe #1, a/k/a IP 96.39.163.229 (#38) is allowed. In addition, defendant's motion to quash (#41) is denied
and defendant's motion for a protective order (#41) is allowed as limited above.
DATED this
~+ /Q
To the extent defendant seeks a protective order or to quash based on a constitutional right to speak anonymously, there is a no expectation of privacy in conducting peer-to-peer activities and the Constitution does not prevent discovery into such activity. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 2013 WL 6000484@ *19-20 (D.Vt. November 8, 2013) (no expectation of privacy when offering information for distribution to other users in peer-to-peer network and identifying the offering IP address). 4 - ORDER