UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-11649

Honorable Linda V. Parker

DOES 1-11, 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

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

On April 25, 2014, Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this

lawsuit against unknown individuals alleging that the individuals infringed

Plaintiff’s copyright in the motion picture “Dallas Buyers Club” (“the Movie”)

when they downloaded the Movie from the Internet or shared it with the public

through an online file-sharing network. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference, filed May 8,

2014. Plaintiff filed the motion seeking to serve subpoenas on Internet Service

Provider Comcast Cable in order to identify the individuals associated with the

Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses from which the alleged infringing conduct was

committed. (See Compl. Ex. B.) For the reasons that follow, the Court grants

4:14-cv-11649-LVP-PJK Doc # 5 Filed 05/13/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 42
Plaintiff’s motion with certain conditions imposed.

Plaintiff is the owner of the federally registered copyright to the Movie. 

(See Compl. ¶ 9, Ex. A.) Plaintiff claims Defendants have copied and distributed

the Movie via the Internet, without Plaintiff’s authorization, permission, or

consent. (See, e.g., Id. ¶ 14-15.) Crystal Bay Corporation, on behalf of Plaintiff,

has identified the IP addresses being used by the individuals conducting the alleged

infringing activity and determined that the individuals were using the internet

systems of Comcast Cable. (See Pl.’s Mot. Ex D.).

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) (citing cases); Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-28, No. 12-13670,

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124349, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2012). 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 identity 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

2

4:14-cv-11649-LVP-PJK Doc # 5 Filed 05/13/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 43
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 Artista Records, LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d

110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Sony Music Entm’t, Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp.

2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)); Artista Records LLC, 551 F. Supp. at 6-7 (citing

cases).

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 Defendants have a minimal expectation of privacy. Id.

It is clear to the Court that Defendants 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 each Doe Defendant by serving a Rule 45

subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify each

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

3

4:14-cv-11649-LVP-PJK Doc # 5 Filed 05/13/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 44
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.

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 any 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 13, 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, May 13, 2014, by electronic and/or U.S.

First Class mail.

s/ Richard Loury 

Case Manager

4

4:14-cv-11649-LVP-PJK Doc # 5 Filed 05/13/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 45