United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited liability company, Plaintiff,
JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 184.108.40.206, an individual, Defendant.
R. Klindt United States Magistrate Judge
cause is before the Court on the Motion to Quash Third-Party
Subpoena (Doc. No. 10; “Motion”), filed August
19, 2019. Plaintiff commenced this action on June 24, 2019 by
filing a Complaint – Action for Damages for Property
Rights Infringement and Demand for Jury Trial –
Injunctive Relief Sought (Doc. No. 1;
“Complaint”). On July 12, 2019, the Court entered
an Order (Doc. No. 9; July 12, 2019 Order) granting
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party
Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference (Doc. No. 8), filed
July 10, 2019, in which Plaintiff sought leave to serve
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”)
with a subpoena (“Subpoena”). In the Motion, the
subscriber of the identified IP address
(“Subscriber”) requests the Court to “bar
Plaintiff from obtaining her identity and address from
Comcast pursuant to the Subpoena, awarding all
attorneys’ fees and costs associated in bringing th[e]
Motion.” Motion at 8. On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff
filed its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
to Quash Third-Party Subpoena (Doc. No. 13).
Motion, the Subscriber makes three arguments: 1) “the
subpoena should be quashed because this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the subpoenaed party”; 2) the
Subscriber “will suffer irreparable harm to her
reputation”; and 3) the requested documents would not
“lead to the actual infringer.” Motion at 3, 5, 7
(emphasis and capitalization omitted). The undersigned
addresses each argument in turn.
this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue the
Subpoena pursuant to Rule 45(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (“Rule(s)”), which provides that a
subpoena to a non-party must be issued “from the court
where the action is pending.” In making her argument,
the Subscriber relies on cases interpreting a prior version
of Rule 45(a)(2). See Motion at 4-5. Accordingly,
the Subscriber’s argument is without merit.
in allowing the Subpoena to be issued, the Court set out a
number of procedural protections, one of which allowed the
Subscriber to file a motion to proceed anonymously in this
case. See July 12, 2019 Order at 4. While the Court
is cognizant of the Subscriber’s concerns, filing a
motion to proceed anonymously sufficiently protects her
privacy and reputational interests. Moreover, Plaintiff may
only use the information disclosed in response to the
Subpoena for the purpose of protecting and enforcing
Plaintiff’s rights as set forth in the Complaint.
to the extent the Subscriber claims she is not the alleged
infringer in this case, see Motion at 7; Declaration
in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. No. 10-1), a
denial of liability is not a basis to quash a Rule 45
subpoena, see, e.g., Plastic The Movie Ltd. v.
Doe, No. 15-CV-21310, 2015 WL 5634625, at *2 (S.D. Fla.
Sept. 24, 2015); Malibu Media, LLC v. Does, No.
2:12-cv-177-FtM-29-SPC, 2012 WL 12921321, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
June 6, 2012). As explained in the July 12, 2019 Order,
Plaintiff made a good cause showing for early discovery.
See July 12, 2019 Order at 2. The Court recognized
the risk that a non-infringing party could be identified and
served, but the Court found this was insufficient to deny
Plaintiffs access to the discovery sought. See id at
due consideration, it is
Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoena (Doc. No. 10) is
subscriber of the identified IP address
(“Subscriber”) is reminded that she may file a
motion to proceed anonymously in this case, no later than
14 days after receiving notification from
Plaintiff of its intent to name and serve her as the
defendant in this case Prior to the filing the
motion, the Subscriber shall confer in good faith with
Plaintiff regarding the relief requested and file a
certification pursuant to Local Rule
 The parties are advised that the good
faith conferral requirement set forth in Local Rule 3.01(g)
has been interpreted as requiring the parties to “speak
to each other in person or by telephone, in a good
faith attempt to resolve disputed issues” prior to
filing most motions seeking court intervention. Davis v.
Apfel, No. 6:98-cv-651-Orl-22A, 2000 WL 1658575, at *2
n.1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000) (unpublished ...