Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02714/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02714-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.220.64.163
Defendant
Malibu Media, LLC
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

Order On Ex-Parte Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) 

Conference

Case No. 2:15-cv-02714-MCE-EFB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Sacramento

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP 

address 76.220.64.163,

Defendant.

Case Number: 2:15-cv-02714-MCE-EFB

ORDER ON EX-PARTE MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD PARTY 

SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) 

CONFERENCE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve 

a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (the “Motion”), and the Court 

being duly advised in the premises does hereby:

FIND, ORDER AND ADJUDGE:

1. Plaintiff established that “good cause” exists for it to serve a third party 

subpoena on AT&T Internet Services (hereinafter the “ISP”). See UMG Recording, 

Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 4104214, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008); and Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-

19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6-7 (D.D.C. 2008).

2. Plaintiff may serve the ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP

to provide Plaintiff with the true name and address of the Defendant to whom the ISP 

Case 2:15-cv-02714-MCE-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Order On Ex-Parte Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) 

Conference

Case No. 2:15-cv-02714-MCE-EFB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

assigned an IP address as set forth on Exhibit A to the Complaint. Plaintiff shall attach 

to any such subpoena a copy of this Order.

3. Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the same manner as 

above on any service provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a 

provider of Internet services to one of the Defendants.

4. If the ISP qualifies as a “cable operator,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 

522(5), which states:

the term “cable operator” means any person or group of persons 

(A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or 

through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such 

cable system, or 

(B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any 

arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable 

system.

it shall comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which states: 

A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying] information if 

the disclosure is . . . made pursuant to a court order authorizing such 

disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to 

whom the order is directed.

by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant. 

5. Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 

subpoena served on the ISP for the purpose of protecting and enforcing Plaintiff’s 

rights as set forth in its Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02714-MCE-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 2