Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 4:17-cv-00485

Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC alleges its copyrighted pornographic films were distributed via BitTorrent by a user identified only by an IP address and seeks the subscriber identity from the ISP via subpoena.
Malibu moved for early discovery to subpoena the ISP; the court previously found good cause and granted early discovery.
The anonymous defendant moved to quash the ISP subpoena, arguing (1) IP-based tracking is unreliable, (2) disclosure would cause undue annoyance/embarrassment and undue burden, and (3) disclosure would violate constitutional privacy and speech rights.
Malibu opposed the motion and agreed to a protective order to prevent public disclosure of the defendant’s identity during discovery.
The court reviewed precedent and held Malibu had pleaded a prima facie case of infringement and that IP-based discovery is an appropriate starting point to identify alleged infringers.
The court denied the motion to quash but ordered the parties to submit a proposed protective order to keep the subscriber identity confidential during discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reliability of IP-based identification	IP address tied to torrent swarm is a reasonable starting point to identify infringers; further investigation will confirm identity	IP tracking is unreliable because it lacks MAC address linkage and others may have used the account	Denied quash; courts accept IP-based identification as a proper initial step and Rule 11 limits further pursuit if investigation disproves identity
Undue annoyance, embarrassment, and burden from disclosure	Protective order will prevent public disclosure and minimize settlement pressure	Disclosure will cause unwarranted stigma and undue burden on defendant	Denied quash; protective order mitigates harms and claimed stigma is insufficient to bar discovery
Constitutional privacy and speech rights	No constitutional right to anonymously infringe copyrights; prima facie infringement pleaded	Subpoena violates First Amendment and privacy rights to anonymous online activity	Denied quash; courts routinely reject a constitutional shield for anonymous copyright infringement
Protective order and confidentiality	Agrees to protective order limiting public disclosure during discovery	Seeks quash to avoid disclosure	Court ordered parties to propose a protective order; identity to remain non-public during discovery; either party may later seek modification

Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-16, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding there is no First Amendment right to engage anonymously in copyright infringement and endorsing limited discovery to identify alleged infringers)
Hard Drive Prods. v. Does 1-1,495, 892 F. Supp. 2d 334 (D.D.C. 2012) (rejecting constitutional objection to subpoenas seeking subscriber identities in mass-file-sharing copyright cases)