You're viewing Docket Item 15 from the case R&D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-50. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:

Case 1:13-cv-00432-WYD-MEH Document 15 Filed 05/24/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2



Civil Action No. 13-cv-00432-WYD-MEH

R & D FILM 1, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,



DOES 1-25,



Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to

Rule 26(f) Conference and Memorandum of Law [filed May 23, 2013; docket #13]. Plaintiff’s

motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows.

Plaintiff’s motion alleges that the Doe Defendants, identified only by their Internet Protocol

(“IP”) addresses, have infringed on Plaintiff’s copyrighted work by using the internet and a

“BitTorrent” protocol to reproduce, distribute, display, or perform Plaintiff’s protected film.

Plaintiff requests permission from the Court to serve limited, immediate discovery on the Doe

Defendants’ Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. The purpose of

this discovery is to obtain additional information concerning the identities of the Doe Defendants.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) proscribes seeking discovery before Rule 26(f) conferral. However,

this prohibition is not absolute; the Court may authorize discovery upon a showing of good cause.

Pod-Ners, LLC v. Northern Feed & Bean of Lucerne Ltd. Liability Co., 204 F.R.D. 675, 676 (D.

Colo. 2002). “Expedited discovery should be limited, however, and narrowly tailored to seek

Case 1:13-cv-00432-WYD-MEH Document 15 Filed 05/24/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

information necessary to support expedited or preliminary relief.” Avaya, Inc. v. Acumen Telecom

Corp., No. 10-cv-03075-CMA-BNB , 2011 WL 9293, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 3, 2011) (citation


After review of the motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff establishes good cause for limited

expedited discovery. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part as follows. The Plaintiff may

serve third party subpoenas pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 on the identified ISPs with the limited

purpose of ascertaining the identities of the Doe Defendants as identified by the twenty-five (25) IP

addresses listed in Docket #13-2. The subpoenas shall be limited to providing Plaintiff with the

name, address, telephone number, email address, and Media Access Control address of the

Defendant to whom the ISP has assigned an IP address. With each subpoena, Plaintiff shall also

serve a copy of this Order. The ISP shall notify the subscriber that his/her identity has been

subpoenaed by the Plaintiff. Finally, the Court emphasizes that Plaintiff may only use the

information disclosed in response to the subpoenas for the purpose of protecting and enforcing its

rights as set forth in its Amended Complaint [docket #12]. The Court cautions Plaintiff that

improper use of this information may result in sanctions. All other relief that may be requested in

the motion is denied.

Entered and dated at Denver, Colorado, this 24th day of May, 2013.


Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge