1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS

LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 11-L-683

)

JOHN DOE, )

)

Defendant. )

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

Before the HONORABLE ROBERT P. LECHIEN, Circuit Judge

June 4, 2012

APPEARANCES:

MR. KEVIN T. HOERNER, Attorney at Law

On Behalf of the Plaintiff; and,

MR. JOHN D. SEIVER & MR. ANDREW G. TOENNIES

Attorneys at Law

On Behalf of the Defendant Comcast (A Non-Party).

MARY JO JALINSKY, CSR

Official Court Reporter

C.S.R. License No. 084-003202

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:179
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

14

So I think based upon the repeated representations that

Comcast stands ready and willing to comply with your court

orders, for the multiple times we've heard that during the

various hearings we've had since April 12th, but most

importantly, because they admit to you that they have the

information, I think that they should be required to comply

with your April 12th order, and that this motion for

clarification, which it is not, should be properly denied.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Would you like to finish it off?

MR. SEIVER: Just briefly, Your Honor. Thank you.

It is true that the motion is titled for clarification and it

had to do with the timing of production, but we also asked

separately for the application of the subscriber protections

outlined in the court's sua sponte order. So we recognize

there was two aspects to the motion, Your Honor. I understand

Mr. Horner has said -- which has been repeated in this case --

is that the ISP does not have standing to seek protection of

subscriber privacy. I disagree with that, and we have briefed

that under the Cable Act, that we have an obligation to

protect subscriber privacy, and that's what's driven us, you

know, through this particular stage of litigation.

As far as what --

THE COURT: Okay, stop right there. What is it --

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:180
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

15

why do you think that you are given standing to assert the

privacy issues regarding the subscribers and the method that

given the subpoena and its purpose and its authority, what

does -- how far does this protection of privacy take me down

the road of examining your protestations regarding the merits

of the case? Because that's the -- seems to me to be the only

reason that you're saying -- that you're talking about

privacy, because privacy would have to be from something that

an average person wouldn't want to be disclosed, a reasonable

man sort of standard. Yet, that has been ordered.

What I don't understand is where and why your industry,

and Comcast, in particular, has taken the position that it is

not a waste of time and a sanctionable conduct on the ISP's

part for asserting these repetitively and past the point of

giving the court any new information.

I am going to deny your motion. I am going to require

you to do what was agreed to after the motion to quash was

denied. I am going to take a look at and provide all of the

protections that are appropriate to the Comcast subscribers

who have responded and will respond over the course of the

next few weeks.

I note that I saw a deadline for filing of a motion to

quash by attorneys, by sua sponte -- I mean, by pro se

litigants. And I'm not sure if that's the Comcast letter or

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:181