Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-06108
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Malibu Media v. Doe, Judge Wang allowed a subpoena for the defendant’s identity and denied an expedited hearing as moot.
Malibu Media may seek John Doe’s name and address from Verizon. John Doe and the Verizon subscriber received notice and an opportunity to challenge or contest the subpoena before Verizon could disclose identifying information. Verizon was required to provide notice, preserve the information, and withhold disclosure while any challenge was pending.
What happened
In Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe, Malibu Media alleged that an unidentified person using a particular Internet address downloaded and shared its copyrighted films without permission. The company asked to subpoena Verizon, the Internet provider, for the subscriber’s name and address.
The court found that Malibu Media had shown a basic copyright-infringement case, that its request was limited and specific, and that Verizon was the only practical source of the identifying information. The court also found that the subscriber had only a limited privacy interest in the alleged activity.
Judge Ona T. Wang granted Malibu Media’s request to serve the subpoena and denied the request for an expedited hearing as moot. The subpoena was limited to the subscriber’s name and address and included procedures allowing Verizon or the subscriber to challenge it before disclosure.
The detailed version
- Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:19-cv-06108
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 14, 2019
Background
Malibu Media, LLC alleged that John Doe used the BitTorrent file-sharing network to download, copy, and distribute Malibu Media’s copyrighted adult films without authorization. Malibu Media had identified an Internet Protocol address associated with the alleged activity but did not know the subscriber’s name or address. It asked for permission to serve Verizon Internet Services, the Internet service provider, with a subpoena seeking that information before the parties’ required discovery conference.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally bars discovery before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless the court permits it. The court applied a reasonableness and good-cause test used for subpoenas seeking identifying information from Internet service providers.
The court found that Malibu Media had made a preliminary showing of copyright infringement by identifying its copyright registrations and alleging that Doe copied and distributed its works. The court also found that the subpoena was specific because it sought only the name and address of the subscriber associated with Internet address 108.46.211.82. It concluded that Verizon was necessary to identify Doe, because Malibu Media otherwise had only the Internet address. Finally, the court stated that Internet subscribers have a minimal expectation of privacy in transmitting or distributing copyrighted material and that the order’s safeguards addressed concerns about identifying the wrong person and causing undue embarrassment.
Order
Judge Ona T. Wang granted Malibu Media’s motion for leave to serve the third-party subpoena. The subpoena could seek only the subscriber’s name and address, and Malibu Media could use the information only for this lawsuit and could not threaten to disclose it to non-parties.
Verizon was required to notify the subscriber within 30 days after being served. The subscriber then had 45 days after receiving the subpoena to ask the court to block or change it, including by asking to proceed anonymously. Verizon could not disclose the information before that period ended or, if a challenge was filed, before the court resolved the challenge and ordered disclosure. If no challenge was filed, Verizon had 10 days after the 45-day period to provide the information. The court also ordered Verizon to preserve the information. The court denied Malibu Media’s request for an expedited hearing as moot.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.