(1) a prima facie showing of infringement,quoting UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe, Case No. 08-193 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). Malibu met that standard here and received permission to serve the subpoena to the ISP.
(2) there is no other way to identify the Doe Defendant, and
(3) there is a risk an ISP will destroy its logs prior to the [Rule 26(f) conference].
John Doe anonymously filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that: (1) the ISP can't identify the actual infringer, it can only identify whomever pays for the IP address; (2) such techniques by plaintiffs like Malibu are "Bad Investigation Techniques;" and (3) identifying the information allows "Plaintiff to Pursue Abusive Litigation."
The problem with these arguments was they did not deal with the means for quashing a subpoena spelled out in Rule 45, which requires a Court to quash a subpoena when the subpoena: (1) does not allow reasonable time to comply; (2) violates certain geographic restrictions; (3) requires disclosure of protected information; or (4) subjects the recipient to undue burden. The Court is also permitted (but not required) to quash a subpoena: (1) to protect a person from disclosing a trade secret or other confidential information; or (2) to protect from the disclosure of an expert's opinion.
Here, John Doe's argument didn't fall into these exceptions so the Court could not (and did not) quash the subpoena.
Motion to quash subpoena, denied.
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, Case No. 2:14-CV-154 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2014) (Mag. Mirando)