MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-316, No. 10 C 6677, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 9, 2011) (Kendall, J.).
Judge Kendall denied putative defendants’ motions to quash plaintiff MCGIP’s subpoenas seeking to identify users associated with specific IP addresses that allegedly used BitTorrent in a manner that infringed MCGIP’s copyrights in certain adult films. The Court’s key reasons for denying the motions to quash were:
MCGIP issued subpoenas to internet service providers ("ISP"), not the putative defendants. The subpoenas, therefore, did not create an undue burden on the putative defendants because the ISPs had a duty to produce documents, not the putative defendants.
MCGIP was seeking identifying information, none of which was privileged.
The subpoena requests were not outweighed by the putative defendant’s privacy or First Amendment rights.
Whether the Does were improperly joined is a premature question. As such, motions raising it were denied without prejudice to refile once the issue was ripe.
The putative defendants’ arguments that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction were also premature as defendants were not in the suit yet. Defendants will be free to raise those issues once they ripen.
Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc., No. 05 C 4088, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 19, 2011) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman granted declaratory judgment plaintiff Rosenthal Collins Group’s ("RCG") motion for protective order and to quash third party subpoenas as to third party CQG. The subpoenas sought information regarding RCG’s use of CQG’s trading software. The Court previously entered judgment against RCE and the only issue left in the case is a January 23, 2012 damages trial. But the judgment and the damages trial were limited to RCG’s use of its software, not other third parties that have not yet been held to infringe, such as CQG’s software.
Viskase v. World Pac, Inc., No. 09 C 5022, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 9, 2010) (Bucklo, J.)
Judge Bucklo granted third party Kalle’s motion for a protective order and to quash plaintiff Viskase’s subpoena. Because the documents sought were created after the patent-in-suit’s filing date, they would have had little impact upon validity. Furthermore, Kalle was a competitor and its confidential information could not be protected from disclosure at trial. Finally, the volume of requested documents and the breadth of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) requests would have made compliance with the subpoena costly and burdensome.