UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MALIBU MEDIA, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE, Subscriber Assigned IP Address

107.5.212.218,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 15-11139

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO QUASH 

AND GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

This matter came before the court on defendant John Doe’s May 18, 2015 motion to dismiss

and to quash subpoena, or in the alternative, for leave to proceed anonymously. Plaintiff Malibu

Media filed a response June 8, 2015; and Defendant filed a reply June 22, 2015. Pursuant to Local

Rule 7.1(f)(2), no oral argument was heard.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiff Malibu Media filed this suit March 26, 2015, against defendant John Doe, identified

only by the Internet Protocol (“IP”) address “107.5.212.218,” alleging that Defendant illegally

downloaded numerous adult movies using BitTorrent technology and thereby infringed Malibu’s

copyrights to the movies. Malibu obtained leave from the court to serve a subpoena on Comcast,

Defendant’s internet service provider, asking for information regarding Defendant’s identity. 

Defendant fears that if Malibu obtains this information, it will file an amended complaint identifying

the account holder by name and publicly accusing that named individual not just of infringing its

copyrights, but of being a persistent and habitual BitTorrent user and infringer.

5:15-cv-11139-JCO-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 07/27/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 88
Defendant contends that Malibu “really has no idea whether Defendant actually infringed any

of its alleged copyrights in the movies that form the basis of its Complaint or whether Defendant

actually is a persistent and habitual BitTorrent user and infringer, as Defendant is alleged to be. All

Malibu claims to know is that Defendant’s IP address was used to download the movies.” Def.’s

mot. br. at 1-2.

Defendant argues that Malibu has alleged facts insufficient to state a claim and seeks dismissal

of the complaint, as well as seeking to quash the subpoena issued to Comcast. In the alternative,

Defendant requests that the matter proceed without disclosure of defendant John Doe’s identity.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In analyzing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “The court must accept all well-pleaded

factual allegations as true and construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.” 

Kelly v. City of Memphis, 230 F.3d 1358 (6th Cir. 2000). “To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss, a complaint ‘must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Malibu Media, L.L.C. v. Doe, 2013 WL 3945978, at *4 (E.D.

Mich. July 31, 2013), citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

“To establish infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid copyright,

and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Feist Publ’n, Inc. v. Rural

Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). In this case Plaintiff has alleged that it is the

registered owner of the copyrights at issue. As to the second element, Plaintiff has properly alleged

infringement by the defendant. The complaint is supported by factual allegations describing the

BitTorrent protocol and the process by which Defendant’s IP address was detected infringing the

copyrighted movies. By describing in detail the operation of the BitTorrent protocol and how

2

5:15-cv-11139-JCO-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 07/27/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 89
Malibu Media determined Defendant’s IP address infringed the movies, Malibu Media has alleged

sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of infringement. Therefore, the court will deny

defendant Doe’s motion to dismiss and to quash subpoena.

In its response brief, Malibu Media has stated that is does not object to allowing defendant

Doe to remain anonymous. Therefore, the court will order the parties to proceed without publicly

identifying Defendant by name.

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that defendant Doe’s May 18, 2015 motion to dismiss and to quash

subpoena is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the parties will proceed without publicly identifying Defendant

by name.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: July 27, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

this date, July 27, 2015, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

3

5:15-cv-11139-JCO-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 07/27/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 90