TCYK, LLC v. DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.227.162.28
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
January 24, 2014.
Plaintiff TCYK, a producer of motion pictures, filed a copyright-infringement suit against defendant Doe. TCYK alleged Doe downloaded and uploaded one of its movies, "The Company You Keep." Since Plaintiff was able to identify Doe only by an Internet Protocol Address, it issued a subpoena to Doe's internet service provider ("ISP") to identify the holder of the IP address.
Defendant Doe'sIP address was 98.227.162.28. TCYK claimed Doe violated copyright by copying and distributing one of its films, "The Company You Keep," on the Internet through the BitTorrent protocol.
TCYK claimed that it was been able to link Doe to the actions. Using geolocation technology, TCYK was able to identify Doe's ISP, BitTorrent client application, and geographic location, as well as the file Doe copied and shared. The technology did not identify Doe's personal identity. In October 2013 TCYK moved for leave to take early discovery to determine Doe's identity. After the court granted TCYK's motion, TCYK subpoenaed Comcast Cable ("Comcast"), Doe's ISP, seeking the identity of the subscribers associated with the IP address in question, 98.227.162.28.
Doe asked the court to modify subpoena so Comcast was only required to disclose his name and address but not his telephone number, email address, or Media Access Control addresses. Because the purpose of TCYK's subpoena is to identity and properly serve Doe, his telephone number, email address, and Media Access Control addresses were required.
Doe's motion to quash was granted in part and denied in part. The motion was denied to the extent that it sought to quash the subpoena. It was granted to the extent that it ought to limit the subpoenaed information to Doe's name and address. Comcast was permitted to disclose the names and addresses of those subscribers associated with the IP address.
View Case at Google:
The Case continued with -
TCYK, LLC, Plaintiff v. JOHN DOES 1-35
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.
February 14, 2014.
Plaintiff TCYK sought relief for copyright infringement by 35 different individuals who allegedly downloaded plaintiff's picture, "The Company You Keep." Accompanying the complaint was a motion to serve third-party subpoenas on various Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") so it could learn the names and addresses of offending individuals. The Cout granted the motion, and the resulting subpoenas asked the ISPs to provide the names and addresses of the 35 different IP addresses.
Defendant sought to quash because the subpoena sought information not relevant to plaintiff's claim. Defendant claimsed to live in an apartment complex with several units and to have an unsecured wireless internet connection. Defendant argued that there were many people who could have used his internet connection to download plaintiff's motion picture, and that the name and address of the owner of the IP address were not relevant because this information would not help plaintiff identify the offender. The Court disagreed, stating “It is possible that defendant is the person who committed the alleged copyright infringement, and, even if the evidence shows that he or she is not the responsible party, the information the subpoena seeks is still relevant. Identifying the owner of the IP address used to download plaintiff's movie and the location of that person's internet connection will help plaintiff narrow down the list of potentially liable individuals.”
Defendant also sought to quash the subpoena because it "requires disclosure of protected information and subjects DOE #18 to undue burden." Defendant did not, however, explain why his or her name and address, which defendant voluntarily disclosed to the employees of the ISP when registering fori Internet service, should be protected from disclosure.
IT WAS ORDERED that the motion to quash filed by Doe BE DENIED.
View Case at Google:
The case continued -
TCYK, LLC, Plaintiff v. DOES 1-44
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
February 20, 2014.
The Court considered four separate motions to sever defendants for improper joinder and/or quash third-party subpoenas. The motions filed by the two John Does were denied. John Doe 11's motion was denied as moot, because Plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed John Doe 11 from the case.
TCYK alleged that John Does 1-44 participated in the same group to download and/or upload an identical version (i.e., the same seed file) of “The Company You Keep”. Plaintiff did not know the true names of Defendants at this time. Plaintiff did know the Internet Protocol ("IP") address assigned to each Defendant by his or her Internet Service Provider ("ISP"). Plaintiff presented a spreadsheet that, according to Plaintiff, captured the IP addresses, ISPs, and geographic locations of the forty-four John Doe Defendants, as well as the date and time that each IP address downloaded the common file. Plaintiff believed discovery would lead to the true names of the Defendants.
Defendants' motions to sever for improper joinder and/or quash third-party subpoenas, filed by two unspecified pro se John Does and Defendant Babafemi George were denied. John Doe 11's motion was denied as moot, because Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed John Doe 11 from the case without prejudice.
View Case at Google:
SITE B, LLC v. DOES 1-51
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
March 7, 2014.
On July 24, 2013, Plaintiff Site B, LLC ("Site B") filed this action against 51 "John Doe" Defendants, alleging copyright infringement in violation of the United States Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. Site B develops and produces motion pictures. Site B alleged that Defendants used BitTorrent, a software program that facilitates data transfers to reproduce and distribute unlawfully Site B's copyrighted motion picture entitled "Under the Bed."
In order to access BitTorrent, an initial file-provider the "seeder") first must upload ("seed") a file to the torrent network; other users ("peers") then connect to the seed file download it. As peers download the seed file, they also transmit pieces of the file automatically for as long as they remain connected to BitTorrent. The group of peers and seeders is called a "swarm."
Site B alleges that each of the Defendants downloaded and uploaded one of its films, "Under the Bed" in the same swarm at various times between April 19 and May 28, 2013.
Site B only knows each Defendant by his or her Internet Protocol address ("IP address"), a unique numerical code that Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") assign to each computer and device connected to the Internet. On September 4, 2013, Site B served subpoenas on the Defendants' ISPs seeking identifying information for each Defendant, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and Media Access Control addresses. Defendant Doe 39 ("Doe 39") has moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum that Site B served on his ISP, Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC ("Comcast").
Doe 39 argued that the Comcast subpoena should be quashed because Site B failed to inform Comcast that disclosure of customer records under the ECPA was voluntary.
In these circumstances, the Court found no basis for quashing the subpoena.
The Court found that Quashing the Subpoena was an Improper Remedy and Joinder was Proper.
For the reasons stated herein, Doe 39's Motion to Quash was denied.
View Case at Google:
.jpg)
