Case 4:12-cv-00498-WS-CAS Document 7 Filed 10/29/12 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

THIRD DEGREE FILMS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. JOHN DOES 1-63, Defendants. / Case No. 4:12cv498-WS/CAS

ORDER Plaintiff filed a complaint on September 24, 2012, against sixty-three John Doe Defendants for acts of copyright infringement. Doc. 1. The Defendants are "known to Plaintiff only by an IP address." Doc. 1 at 2. The complaint states that venue is proper here and "this Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because each Defendant committed the tortious conduct alleged in this Complaint in the Middle District of Florida, and (a) each Defendant resides in the Middle District of Florida, and/or (b) each Defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic business activity, or has contracted anywhere to supply goods or services in the Middle District of Florida." Doc. 1 at 2. Because of those statements, it is unknown whether this case has properly been filed here or should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiff shall file a response to

Case 4:12-cv-00498-WS-CAS Document 7 Filed 10/29/12 Page 2 of 3

Page 2 of 3

this Order no later than November 9, 2012, clarifying this issue and, if necessary, filing an amended complaint.1 Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to serve a third party subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Doc. 5. Plaintiff states that a Rule 45 subpoena is necessary to identify the Defendants and will be used only to determine customer identity of the relevant IP addresses so as to prosecute this case. Doc. 5-1 at 3. Plaintiff asserts that this information is likely maintained for only a short period of time. Id. Further, Plaintiff states that there is no other way to learn the identities of the John Doe Defendants except by serving a subpoena and, logically, it is impossible to hold a Rule 26(f) conference until the identities are known. Id. at 6. Good cause having been shown, the motion, doc. 5, is GRANTED. Plaintiff also filed a motion for an expedited hearing. Doc. 6. The motion is denied because it appears unnecessary in light of the fact that this Order grants the motion for third party subpoenas, doc. 5. Should Plaintiff require a hearing, a renewed motion may be filed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's motion for an expedited hearing, doc. 6, is DENIED without prejudice.

If only the complaint were reviewed, doc. 1, there would be no clear indication on whether or not venue is appropriate in the Middle District of Florida as alleged in the complaint or in the Northern District of Florida where this case was filed. However, after review of Exhibit A with the complaint, doc. 1-1, and Exhibit B, filed with the motion seeking leave to take discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, the IP addresses appear to be located within the Northern District of Florida. Doc. 5-2 at 18-20.
Case No. 4:12cv498-WS/CAS

1

Case 4:12-cv-00498-WS-CAS Document 7 Filed 10/29/12 Page 3 of 3

Page 3 of 3

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference, doc. 5, is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff may conduct immediate discovery on the Internet Service Providers listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint, doc. 1, with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking information sufficient to identify each John Doe Defendant, by true name, current and permanent address, telephone number, e-mail address, and Media Access Control ('MAC") address. 4. Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena upon any intermediary Internet Service Provider that may be identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one or more of the John Doe Defendants. 5. If and when an Internet Service Provider is served with a subpoena, the Provider shall give written notice, which may include e-mail notice, to any affected subscribers within five business days, and such notice shall inform the subscribers of their right to challenge the subpoena in this Court. 6. Plaintiff's use of the informed disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena served on an ISP provider shall be limited to enforcing and protecting Plaintiff's rights as set forth in its complaint. See doc. 7 at 2 of Case 4:12cv337-RH/CAS. 7. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order no later than November 9, 2012, clarifying the issue of venue and, if necessary, filing an amended complaint. DONE AND ORDERED on October 29, 2012.

S/ Charles A. Stampelos CHARLES A. STAMPELOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case No. 4:12cv498-WS/CAS

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful