UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 14-12412 

Honorable Linda V. Parker 

 

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP 

address 24.11.94.45, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUBPOENA PRIOR TO RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE

 

 On June 20, 2014, Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this 

lawsuit against an unknown individual alleging that the individual infringed 

Plaintiff’s copyrights when the individual downloaded, copied, and distributed 

Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to File Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference, filed June 20, 2014. 

Plaintiff filed the motion seeking to serve subpoenas on Internet Service Provider 

Comcast Cable in order to identify the individual associated with the Internet 

Protocol (“IP”) address from which the alleged infringing conduct was committed. 

See Pl.’s Mot. Ex. C. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Plaintiff’s 

motion with certain conditions imposed.

4:14-cv-12412-LVP-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 08/05/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 43
 2

 Plaintiff operates a subscription based website. See Pl.’s Mot. 3. Plaintiff 

claims the unknown individual’s IP address has been habitually used to infringe 

Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. See Pl.’s Mot. 3–4. Plaintiff asserts it used 

geolocation technology to determine the IP address being used by the individual 

conducting the alleged infringing activity, and determined that the individual was 

using the internet systems of Comcast Cable. Pl.’s Mot. 2; see also Compl. Ex. A. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) prohibits the propounding of 

discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, except in limited circumstances not 

applicable here or when authorized by court order. A number of courts have 

applied a “good cause” standard to determine whether such discovery should be 

authorized. See, e.g., Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 

(D.D.C. 2008). In copyright infringement cases like the present one, courts 

routinely find good cause to permit discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) 

conference to identify the defendants where: (1) the plaintiff makes a prima facie 

showing of a copyright infringement claim; (2) the plaintiff submits a specific 

discovery request; (3) the information sought is limited in scope and not available 

through alternative means; (4) there is a central need for the subpoenaed 

information; and (5) there is a minimal expectation of privacy on the part of the 

defendant. See Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010) 

4:14-cv-12412-LVP-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 08/05/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 44
 3

(citing Sony Music Entm’t, Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 

2004)); Arista Records LLC, 551 F. Supp. at 6–7. 

 Plaintiff establishes that “good cause” exists for it to serve third-party 

subpoenas on Comcast Cable in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference. Plaintiff 

makes a prima facie showing of a claim of copyright infringement, submits a 

specific discovery request, establishes that there are no alternative means to obtain 

the information that its seeks through the discovery, establishes a central need for 

the information, and Defendant has a minimal expectation of privacy. 

It is clear to the Court that Defendant must be identified before this suit can 

progress further. 

 For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 

Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference, with certain limitations outlined 

herein: 

1. Plaintiff may serve immediate discovery on Comcast Cable to 

obtain the identity of the Doe Defendant by serving a Rule 45 

subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the 

Defendant, including the individual’s name and current (and 

permanent) addresses. Disclosure of the information requested 

is ordered pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which 

authorizes cable operators to disclose personally identifiable 

information when the cable operators are ordered to do so by a 

court. 

2. Plaintiff shall attach a copy of this Opinion and Order to each 

subpoena that it issues. 

4:14-cv-12412-LVP-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 08/05/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 45
 4

3. Any information disclosed to Plaintiff in response to the Rule 

45 subpoena may be used by Plaintiff solely for the purpose of 

protecting Plaintiff’s rights as set forth in the Complaint. 

4. If and when Comcast Cable is served with a subpoena, it shall 

give written notice, which may include e-mail notice, to the 

subscribers in question within seven (7) days of service of the 

subpoena. If Comcast Cable and/or Defendant wants to file a 

motion in response to the subpoena, the party must do so before 

the return date of the subpoena, which shall not be less than 

thirty (30) days from the date of such written notice. 

5. Comcast Cable shall not produce the information requested 

before the return date of the subpoena or the resolution of any 

timely filed motion challenging the subpoena, whichever occurs 

later. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 5, 2014 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, August 5, 2014, by electronic and/or U.S. 

First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:14-cv-12412-LVP-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 08/05/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 46