Despite the Court’s January 30, 2012 Order authorizing the plaintiff to issue subpoenas toISPs, Comcast refuses to produce the requested information “[w]ithout a valid court order thatrecognizes that [the Court] will ultimately have jurisdiction over the unnamed subscribers, [and]whether they may be properly joined.”
Pl.’s Mot. Compel Comcast, ECF No. 7, Ex. B, ComcastObjection Letter dated February 16, 2012, at 3. Comcast’s refusal to comply with the subpoena prompted the plaintiff to file a motion to compel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure45(c)(2)(B)(i), seeking an order directing Comcast to comply with the plaintiff’s subpoena for identifying information for the customers using the 400 Listed IP Addresses serviced byComcast. Pl.’s Mot. Compel Comcast, ECF No. 7.Subsequently, the Movant ISPs filed a joint motion to quash the subpoenas directed tothem pursuant to the January 30, 2012 Order. Movant ISPs’ Mot. Quash, ECF No. 8. TheMovant ISPs assert that the plaintiff’s subpoenas should be quashed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A)(iv), because they impose an “undue burden” upon them.
Mem.Supp. Movant ISPs’ Mot. Quash, ECF No. 8, at 4-5. Specifically, the Movant ISPs argue thatthe “John Does” associated with the Listed IP Addresses are improperly joined in one lawsuitand that “[p]ersonal jurisdiction and venue do not exist in this district over the vast majority of the targeted Does.”
. at 1-2. Thus, because the plaintiff’s “underlying action is procedurallydefective or Defendants are not subject to suit here,” the Movant ISPs argue that “any burden putupon a third-party to identify Defendants is an
at 4.The Movant ISPs recognize that this Court previously denied motions to quash filed byISPs in other cases involving allegations of illegal infringement of copyrighted works byunknown individuals using a BitTorrent protocol.
See Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. DOES 1-
Comcast also apparently refused to comply with the subpoena due to an issue over “inadequate assurance of payment,” but that issue was resolved prior to the filing of the plaintiff’s motion to compel. Pl.’s Mot. CompelComcast, ECF No. 7, at 1.
Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 3 of 42