Eric N. Aglow, Esq. 

UAW-GM Legal Services Plan 

One Woodbridge Center 

Suite 322 

Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095 

Voice: 732 602 1166

Fax: 732 602 9730 

E-mail: Ericag@Uawlsp.com 

Attorneys for John Doe with IP address 

 98.51.207.109 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

---------------------------------------------------x 

In the Matter of BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., 

A German Corporation 

Plaintiff Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-03621 

 (CCC)(JAD) 

 -against- 

 NOTICE OF MOTION 

JOHN DOES 1-X, 

 Defendants. 

---------------------------------------------------x 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

TO QUASH SUBPOENA RELATING TO DEFENDANT 

“JOHN DOE” WITH COMPUTER INTERNET PROTOCOL (“IP”) 

ADDRESS 98.51.207.109 PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 45 (c) 

AND 

TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT 

TO: Jay McDaniel, Esq. 

 54 Main Street 

 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 

 

 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 1 of 23 PageID: 639
 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Certification of Eric 

Aglow, Esq., attorney for “John Doe with IP address 98.51.207.109” , and all other 

filings and proceedings in this action, said “John Doe” will move this Court on the 

21ST day of November 2011, before the Honorable Joseph Dickson, United States 

District Court Magistrate, at the United States Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3) for an Order to Quash the 

Subpoena issued by Plaintiff to Comcast and for any other relief this Court deems just 

and proper. 

 ________s/Eric N. Aglow________ 

 Eric N. Aglow, Esq. 

 UAW Legal Services Plan 

 One Woodbridge Center 

 Suite 322 

 Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095 

 732 602 1166 

 Ericag@uawlsp.com

 Attorneys for John Doe with 

 IP address 98.51.207.109 

 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 2 of 23 PageID: 640
Eric N. Aglow, Esq. 

UAW-GM Legal Services Plan 

One Woodbridge Center 

Suite 322 

Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095 

Voice: 732 602 1166 

Fax: 732 602 9730 

E-mail: Ericag@Uawlsp.com 

Attorneys for Defendant “Joe Doe” with IP 

# 98.51.207.109 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

-------------------------------------------------------------x 

In the Matter of BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., 

A German Corporation 

Plaintiff Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-03621 

 (CCC)(JAD) 

 -againstJOHN DOES 1-X, 

 Defendants. 

-------------------------------------------------------------x 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA RELATING TO DEFENDANT 

“JOHN DOE” WITH COMPUTER INTERNET PROTOCOL (“IP”) 

ADDRESS 98.51.207.109 PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 45 (c) 

AND 

DISMISS COMPLAINT AGAINST “JOHN DOE” 98.51.207.109 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 3 of 23 PageID: 641
 JOHN DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO COMCAST ALLEGES OWNS 

AND/OR UTILZES A COMPUTER WITH AN IP ADDRESS 98.51.207.109

(hereinafter referred to simply as “John Doe”), by and through the Certification of 

said “John Doe’s” attorney, Eric N. Aglow, Esq., UAW Legal Services Plan, moves 

this Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3), and limits his appearance solely for 

the purposes of this Motion, for an Order to Quash a Subpoena issued by Plaintiff, a 

German corporation, upon Comcast, Inc., the alleged Internet Provider of said “John 

Doe”. 

CERTIFICATION OF MOVANT’S ATTORNEY 

 Eric N. Aglow, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law in this State and 

Court, does certify as follows: 

NATURE OF THE MOTION 

1. This is a motion to Quash a Subpoena issued by Plaintiff, a German 

corporation, upon Comcast, Inc., a United States corporation that provides 

Internet Service to paying Subscribers. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 4 of 23 PageID: 642
BACKGROUND OF MOVING PERSON AND STANDING TO FILE THIS 

MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA 

2. The moving person is an individual, who lives in a State other than New 

Jersey, and is a paying Subscriber to Comcast as an Internet Provider. 

3. Comcast alleges that said “John Doe” owns, utilizes and/or has utilized, a 

computer, that contains a certain IP address, namely IP # 98.51.207.109, which 

address was obtained by Comcast through the utilization of a computer 

connected to Comcast’s servers. 

4. Said “John Doe” has standing to make this motion pursuant to F.R.C.P. 45 (c) 

(3) (B) which specifically permits such a motion to “protect a person subject to 

or affected by a subpoena”. (See, e.g. Schmulovich v. 1161 Rt. 9 LLC, 2007 

WL 2362598 (D.N.J. 2007); Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of

North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc., v. Caliber Auto Transfer, 2011 WL 2670948 

(D.N.J. 2011) where the Courts generally held that persons have standing to 

challenge a subpoena where personal privilege was asserted). 

5. Fed R. Civ. P. 45 (c)(3) specifically requires a Court to quash a subpoena if it 

subjects a person to undue burden or requires disclosure of “protected matter”. 

6. While the subpoena in question is directed only to Comcast Corporation, said 

“John Doe” has standing as an “affected” person to move to quash this 

subpoena and has the right as an affected person to ensure that “protected 

matter”, to wit his identity, not be revealed. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 5 of 23 PageID: 643
7. This Court should quash the Subpoena issued to Comcast Corporation as it 

relates to the person who Comcast alleges owns and/or utilizes a computer 

with the IP address 98.51.207.109 and issue a Protective Order directed to 

Comcast Corporation forbidding the disclosure to Plaintiff of the identity of 

said “John Doe”. 

8. Since the sole purpose of the Subpoena underlying this action is to obtain the 

name and address of the individual who allegedly owns and/or utilizes the 

computer with said specified IP address, providing the name and/or address of 

said individual in this Motion to Quash said Subpoena would be self defeating, 

would make this Motion essentially moot and would breach the rights of said 

individual to request that information provided to this attorney be kept 

confidential along with concomitant ethical obligation of the moving person’s 

attorney to maintain said confidentiality for the purposes of this Motion. 

9. Upon direction of this Court, a separate letter can be addressed to the Court 

with the name and address of said “John Doe” with said letter being filed 

under seal, not revealed to the Plaintiff’s attorney and not made a part of any 

electronic filing. 

BACKGROUND OF THE UNDERLYING ACTION 

10. This action involves unsubstantiated and unspecified allegations, as it relates to 

any particular prospective Defendant, by Plaintiff, a German corporation, 

against unnamed and unknown individual Defendants who Plaintiff alleges 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 6 of 23 PageID: 644
infringed their alleged copyrights on the Internet by “uploading” and/or 

“downloading” one particular movie on the Internet, through the use of a 

computer, allegedly without the permission of the Plaintiff. 

11. Plaintiff foreign corporation alleges that such actions were done through the 

utilization of computers with further specific allegations that said computers in 

question contained a specific “IP” address (a number specific and intrinsic to 

every computer). 

12. Plaintiff, a German corporation, alleges that they are in the business of 

protecting the holders of copyrights issued by the United States government 

and that they hold an exclusive license from an entity called “CEZAR 10” to 

distribute the motion picture “Weekend” . 

BACKGROUND OF SUBPOENA IN QUESTION 

13. An Order was entered on July 1, 2011 by this Court which granted leave to 

Plaintiff to perform expedited discovery; specifically permission to issue Rule 

45 subpoenas to all of the Internet Providers identified in the Complaint to 

obtain information sufficient to identify “John Doe” Defendants based solely 

upon an IP computer address. 

14. In July 2011, Plaintiff Baseprotect UG, LTd (“Baseprotect”), a foreign 

corporation, pursuant to said Order, issued a subpoena to Comcast Corporation 

which directed Comcast Corporation to produce the name and address of the 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 7 of 23 PageID: 645
individuals whose computer IP addresses are listed in an attachment to said 

subpoena (attached hereto as Exhibit A). 

15. One of the IP addresses contained in said Subpoena includes an IP address of a 

computer that Comcast alleges is a computer registered as a Subscriber to their 

services and is connected to the “John Doe” who is the subject of this Motion. 

16. By a letter dated September 19, 2011 and by an amended letter dated 

September 28, 2011, “John Doe” was a notified by Internet provider Comcast 

that Plaintiff was seeking disclosure of his identify and address based upon 

said alleged IP address and that the information would be revealed unless 

“John Doe” filed “legal process with the Court”. (amended letter with name 

and address redacted, attached hereto as Exhibit B, stated that “John Doe” 

needed to file this Motion no later than October 28, 2011 ; original letter cited 

the wrong federal court for the filing of this motion). 

17. It is well established that a party who has asserted a personal right with respect 

to materials that are subpoened has standing to challenge said subpoena. 

18. The subpoena in question specifically seeks personal information about said 

“John Doe” that will permit the Plaintiff, a foreign corporation, to personally 

identify the name and address of said Subscriber. 

19. Said “John Doe” has a personal right and privacy interest to his own identity 

and to whom his identify will, or will not, be disclosed.

20. The fact that a German corporation files a Complaint with this Court with 

wholly unsubstantiated allegations that a particular computer allegedly 

downloaded a movie should not serve as a basis for said Plaintiff to be able to 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 8 of 23 PageID: 646
force an Internet Provider to provide information which said Provider would 

otherwise consider private nor do said allegations serve as an waiver by the 

Subscriber to maintain the privacy of his identity. 

21. By information and belief, it is the general policy of Comcast Corporation, 

subject only to Court Order, not to use or share the personal information of 

their Subscribers to third parties, especially their names and home address, 

except in certain will described circumstances. 

22. Since said “John Doe” has such a privacy right that would be affected by 

compliance with the Subpoena, said “John Doe” has the right to directly 

challenge this subpoena and file a Motion to Quash such a subpoena. 

23. It is clear from the letter dated September 19, 2011 received by said “John 

Doe” that Comcast Corporation does not intend to file any Motion to Quash 

the Subpoena nor to take any other steps to protect the privacy of their 

Subscribers but instead leaves that obligation and burden to the Subscribers. 

SUBPOENA NOT RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT 

24. Plaintiff does not allege in their Complaint nor does Plaintiff have any 

information or facts that substantiate that any of the unnamed Defendant “John 

Does” owned the computers in question or utilized said computers but rather 

simply allege in the Complaint that computers with said IP addresses were 

subscribers to Comcast or other Internet providers. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 9 of 23 PageID: 647
25. Although Plaintiff alleges throughout their Complaint that those unnamed 

Defendants “committed individual acts of copyright infringement”, were 

involved with “illegal downloading” and “illegal dissemination”, Plaintiffs do 

not allege any facts, nor have they demonstrated that they have any facts that 

such acts were actually performed by the unnamed Internet subscriber “John 

Does”. 

26. In their Complaint and in other documents already filed with this Court 

(Affidavit of David Farris, USA account manger for Plaintiff dated June 30, 

2011), Plaintiff admits that their only knowledge of any actual prospective 

individual Defendant is an IP address, obtained by their so-called “P2P 

download monitoring software”, that Plaintiff alleges is related to a particular 

computer which is registered with an Internet Service Provider in the name of 

the person who applied for and pays for said Internet access. 

27. This is clearly a fishing expedition type of Subpoena for the name of any 

individual that they desire to include as a Defendant since there is no intrinsic 

relationship between the person who pays for Internet Service and any persons 

who might have utilized a particular computer in an improper fashion. In fact, 

there remains the possibility that a person other than the Subscriber improperly 

“hacked” into a person’s computer and/or Internet access account and 

performed these alleged illegal acts. 

28. This position is clearly enunciated in an almost identical action entitled VPR 

Internationale v. Does 1-1017( United States District Court for the Central 

District of Illinois, Case No. 11-2068), where the Court was considering a 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 10 of 23 PageID: 648
Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Review the Court's denial of two prior 

Motions for expedited discovery in a case that also involved allegations of 

illegal downloading of adult films by “John Does” with certain IP addresses. 

The Hon. Harold Baker, in an Order dated April 29, 2011, states that “IP 

subscribers are not necessarily copyright infringers....(t)he infringer might be

a subscriber, someone in the subscriber’s household, a visitor with a laptop, 

a neighbor, or someone parked on the street at any given moment” (emphasis 

added). The Order then cites a MSNBC investigation of a case in which 

federal agents raided a house, seized all computers and other electronic 

equipment based upon allegations of downloading child pornography only to 

later learn that a neighbor had used multiple IP subscriber WI-Fi connections 

and all downloading was done solely by the neighbor without any knowledge 

by the Subscriber. The Order, first noting that the Court had no jurisdiction 

over even a single “John Doe”, as is also the case in the instant action, totally 

discredited Plaintiff’s argument that the Subscribers could always file Motions 

to Quash if expedited discovery were to be allowed and instead the Court 

concluded that the “imprimatur of this Court will not be used to advance a 

fishing expedition by means of a perversion of the purpose and intent of class 

action”. (Order attached hereto as Exhibit C). 

29. The astute observations enunciated by the Court in the VPR Internationale, 

supra, highlights not only the highly invasive aspect of the Subpoena as it 

relates to the privacy rights of a Subscriber but also highlights the complete 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 11 of 23 PageID: 649
lack of any relevancy between the information being requested in the 

Subpoena and the allegations of the Complaint. 

30. Simply stated, the identity of the Subscriber through an IP address does not 

provide the identity of the alleged infringer. As pointed out by the Court in 

VPR Internationale, supra, the infringer could be any person and the 

Subscriber not only might not know who the identity of alleged infringer but 

also is likely not to even know that such alleged infringements occurred 

through utilization of his IP address. 

31. The Subscribers, including the moving party, have both a contractual right of 

privacy as it relates to their relationship with their Internet Provider and a 

federally protected general right to privacy of their identity. This right to 

privacy far outweighs any desire by the Plaintiff to seek the name of the 

Subscriber when they are totally unable to provide even a scintilla of evidence 

that any particular Subscriber actually performed an illegal act. 

IMPROPER FORUM AND LACK OF JURSIDICTION 

MISJOINDER 

32. Plaintiff alleges that New Jersey is the proper federal forum based upon the 

disingenuous assertion that the alleged downloading and dissemination 

occurred via the Internet from one subscriber to another somewhere in the 

United States and that New Jersey is one of the possible 50 states. In other 

words, Plaintiff, a foreign corporation, alleges in their Complaint that this 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 12 of 23 PageID: 650
Court has jurisdiction and venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1391 (b) and 14000 (a) 

simply because it is their belief that it is probable that at least one “John Doe” 

is a resident of New Jersey. This shot-gun rationale, however, would also 

support venue in the federal district courts in Alaska or Hawaii since such 

residency is also equally possible. 

33. The Supreme Court ruled in Lumiere v. Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174 (1923) that 

venue for suits for infringement of copyright is not determined by the general 

provision governing suits in the federal court by rather by the specific 

copyright venue provision which provides that “civil actions....relating to 

copyrights...may be instituted in the district in which the Defendant or his 

agent resides or may be found”. 

34. As stated by the Court in a Memorandum Decision Denying Expedited 

Discovery dated July 29, 2011 in NuImage, Inc. v. John Does, (United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia , Case No. 11-301), the “Plaintiff 

must have at least a good faith belief that such discovery will enable it to show 

that the Court has general jurisdiction over the Defendant”, that “mere 

conjecture or speculation is not enough” and that “when copyright 

infringement is the sole claim being alleged, it is misleading and arguably 

disingenuous, to assert that venue may be proper under Section 1391 (b) 

...when section 14000(c) is the exclusive venue statue for copyright 

infringement actions.” (copy attached hereto as Exhibit D) 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 13 of 23 PageID: 651
35. In essence, Plaintiff is requesting that this Court take jurisdiction and venue 

over an action in which there is perhaps not a single resident of New Jersey as 

a prospective named Defendant. 

36. Furthermore, Plaintiff makes the assertion or, at least, insinuation in their 

Complaint that they already know that at least some of the prospective 

addresses relate to residents of the State of New Jersey. In actuality, due to the 

fact that Internet Providers, including Comcast, utilize a variety of methods to 

assign IP addresses to their Subscribers, especially for the assignment of 

dynamic IP addresses. Internet Subscribers randomly utilize servers located in 

a variety of states to assign IP address and the location of said server is where 

the IP address is located rather than necessarily where the Subscriber actual 

resides. In other words, an Internet Provider server may be located in New 

Jersey that assigns a particular IP address while the Subscriber actually lives in 

another State. Other than to make a statistical argument based upon their 

improper joinder of almost 1,000 disparate Defendants, it is disingenuous and 

incorrect, as it relates to the limits of technology, for the Plaintiff to 

categorically assert or insinuate that that any certain number, if any, of the 

Subscribers reside in the State of New Jersey. 

37. In actuality, there is no connection with this Court by the Plaintiff German 

corporation nor does Plaintiff have any facts that even a single unnamed 

Defendant resides in New Jersey. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 14 of 23 PageID: 652
38. It appears that perhaps the only reason this action was commenced in New 

Jersey is because Plaintiff, a German corporation, retained the services of a 

law firm with offices in Hackensack, New Jersey. 

39. The statistical hope by Plaintiff’s law firm that at least one of their almost 

1,000 listed IP addresses will bring forth a resident of New Jersey is most 

certainly not a reason for this Court to continue with jurisdiction over this 

matter or to subject the moving party, who lives several states away from New 

Jersey, to the burden of protecting his interests and reputation in an out of state 

Court. 

40. The moving party lives more than 600 miles from New Jersey, is not a resident 

of New Jersey, does not work in New Jersey and does not use a computer nor 

access the Internet in the State of New Jersey. 

41. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey simply does not 

have jurisdiction over said “John Doe”, an out of state resident, since there are 

absolutely no minimum contacts between said “John Doe” and this forum. 

42. Said “John Doe” should not be forced to defend a legal action in an out of state 

Court simply because Plaintiff alleges, without any viable legal substantiation, 

that New Jersey is as good a forum as any other State.

43. Although Courts have sometimes considered that raising arguments relating to 

jurisdiction and venue are premature when it relates to expedited discovery, 

there is a growing trend, as Internet use, and misuse, increases, to more 

carefully scrutinize expedited discovery, especially expedited discovery to 

determine the identity of unknown Defendants whose wrongdoing can likely 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 15 of 23 PageID: 653
not even be established. The Ninth Circuit in Diabolic Video Productions Inc.

v. John Does 1-2099, 2001 WL 3100404 (N.DF. Cal 20011) held that 

expedited discovery to determine the identity of “John Does” would not be 

allowed as the individuals were improperly joined. 

44. As stated by the Court in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185, F.R.D. 

573 (N.D. Cal. 1999), “with the rise of the Internet has come the ability to 

commit certain tortious acts... entirely on-line. The tortfeasor can act 

pseudonymously or anonymously and may give fictitious or incomplete 

identifying information...(however) people who have committed no wrong 

should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to 

harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the 

power of the court’s order to discovery their identity”. 

45. In the Order from VPR INternationale v. Does, supra, the Court concluded 

with the insightful reflection that “(c)ould expedited discovery be sued to wrest 

quick settlements, even from people who have done nothing wrong? The 

embarrassment of public exposure might be too great, the legal system too 

daunting and expensive, for some to ask whether (the Plaintiff) has competent 

evidence to prove its case”. 

46. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if 

 any of the foregoing statements by me are willfully false, I am subject to 

 punishment. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 16 of 23 PageID: 654
WHERFORE the following relief is requested: 

a. Quash the Subpoena issued to Comcast Corporation to the extent that it 

seeks the disclosure of the name and address of said “John Doe” with IP 

address 98.51.207.109; 

b. Issue a Protective Order forbidding the disclosure of said information by 

Comcast to Plaintiff; 

c. Dismissal of the Complaint against said “John Doe” due to lack of personal 

jurisdiction over this potential Defendant and misjoinder of said “John 

Doe”; 

d. Any and other further relief deemed just and proper by this Court. 

Dated: 10/19/2011 s/ Eric N. Aglow 

 _____________________________ 

 Eric N. Aglow, Esq. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 17 of 23 PageID: 655
Eric N. Aglow, Esq. 

UAW-GM Legal Services Plan 

One Woodbridge Center 

Suite 322 

Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095

Voice: 732 602 1166 

Fax: 732 602 9730 

E-mail: Ericag@Uawlsp.com 

Attorneys for Defendant “Joe Doe” with IP 

# 98.51.207.109 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

-------------------------------------------------------------x 

In the Matter of BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., 

A German Corporation 

Plaintiff Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-03621 

 (CCC)(JAD) 

 -againstJOHN DOES 1-X, 

 Defendants. 

-------------------------------------------------------------x 

STATEMENT OF NO FILING OF BRIEF 

 Eric N. Aglow, Esq., attorney for “John Doe” with IP address 98.51.207.109 

states that a brief is not necessary for this Motion to Quash the Subpoena due to the 

unique nature of this Motion and respectfully requests a waiver for any formal brief 

pursuant to Rule 7.1 (d)(4). 

 s/ Eric N. Aglow, Esq. 

 ________________________ 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 18 of 23 PageID: 656
Eric N. Aglow, Esq. 

UAW-GM Legal Services Plan 

One Woodbridge Center 

Suite 322 

Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095 

Voice: 732 602 1166 

Fax: 732 602 9730 

E-mail: Ericag@Uawlsp.com 

Attorneys for John Doe with IP address 

 98.51.207.109 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

------------------------------------------x 

In the Matter of BASEPROTECT 

UG, Ltd., a German Corporation 

 Plaintiff Civ. No. 2:11-cv-03621(CCC)(JAD) 

 -against- 

 ORDER 

JOHN DOES 1-X, 

 Defendants. 

------------------------------------------x 

 THIS MATTER HAVING BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THIS 

COURT, by Eric N. Aglow, Esq., UAW Legal Services Plan, as attorney

for John Doe with IP address 98.51.207.109, by a Motion dated 

October 19, 2011 to Quash a Subpoena issued to Comcast 

Communications , Inc. and to Dismiss the Complaint, dated October 

19, 2011; and 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 19 of 23 PageID: 657
 WHEREAS THIS COURT HAVING issued an Order dated July 1, 

2011 that permitted Plaintiff to issue Rule 45 subpoenas to Internet 

Service Providers identified in Exhibit A of the Complaint to obtain 

information sufficient to identity the unnamed John Does; and 

 WHEREAS Plaintiff issued a Subpoena upon Comcast 

Communications, Inc. to produce the names and addresses of 

Internet account holders indentified in the Subpoena with particular 

Internet Protocol (IP) addresses; and 

 WHEREAS John Doe with IP address 98.51.207.109, the moving 

party, received a letter dated September 29, 2011 from Comcast 

Communications, Inc. informing him of said Subpoena and advising 

said individual to file papers with this Court no later than October 28, 

2011 if he desires to contest the release of his personal information; 

and 

 THIS COURT HAVING READ and considered the papers and 

argument of counsel and having found good cause; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED on this _________day of 

_______________2011 that Comcast Communications is hereby 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 20 of 23 PageID: 658
enjoined from providing any personal information about John Doe 

with IP address # 98.51.207.109 to the Plaintiff; and 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED that the Complaint 

against John Doe with IP address # 98.51.207.109 is hereby 

dismissed; and 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED that the attorney for 

“John Doe” with IP #98.51.207.109 is directed to serve a copy of this 

Order upon Comcast Communications, Inc. within 7 days of receipt 

this Order, at the address stated in their letter to said “John Doe”. 

 ________________________________

 Hon. Joseph Dickson, U.S.M.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 21 of 23 PageID: 659
Eric N. Aglow, Esq. 

UAW-GM Legal Services Plan 

One Woodbridge Center 

Suite 322 

Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095

Voice: 732 602 1166 

Fax: 732 602 9730 

E-mail: Ericag@Uawlsp.com 

Attorneys for Defendant “Joe Doe” with IP 

# 98.51.207.109 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

-------------------------------------------------------------x 

In the Matter of BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., 

A German Corporation 

Plaintiff Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-03621 

 (CCC)(JAD) 

 -against- 

 CERTIFICATE OF 

 MAILING

JOHN DOES 1-X, 

 Defendants. 

-------------------------------------------------------------x 

1. I, the undersigned, am Eric N. Aglow, Esq, UAW-GM Legal 

Services Plan, attorney for “John Doe” with IP address 98.51.207.109 

in the above-entitled action. 

2. On October 19, 2011, I mailed in the U.S. Post Office in 

Woodbridge, New Jersey, a sealed envelope with postage prepaid 

thereon, by ordinary mail, containing Motion to Quash Subpoena 

addressed to the following persons: 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 22 of 23 PageID: 660
1. Bonnie Park, Esq., McDaniel Law Firm, 54 Main Street, 

Hackensack, New Jersey 07601, attorneys for Plaintiff; 

2. Comcast Corporation Legal Response Center, 650 Centerton 

Road, Moorestown, New Jersey 08057. 

3. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I 

am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me 

are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. 

 s/Eric N. Aglow 

Dated: October 19, 2011 ___________________________ 

 Eric N. Aglow, Esq. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 70 Filed 10/19/11 Page 23 of 23 PageID: 661