verizon refuse

7/31/2019 Verizon Refuse

1/4

~ r t l S D C SDNY" [)OCUMENT


2/4

Hon. Katherine B. ForrestMay 3, 2012Page 2

Verizon a t a 'P.O. Box' location outside of the issuingdi s t r i c t , the Southern Dis t r ic t of New York;" second it arguestha t our subpoena does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b) (2)because it speci f ies a location for production in New York, "alocation that is more than 100 miles from Verizon." We believethese objections should be overruled for two reasons. Firs t ,Verizon has extensive t i e s to th i s Distr ic t , with i t s corporateheadquarters located a t 140 West Stree t , New York, NY 10007.Second, Verizon should be estopped from objecting on thesegrounds because Verizon requested that it be served by fax. Seehttp: //www.verizon.net/po1icies/vzcom/civil subpoena popup.asp.Verizon has responded to eight previous, s imilar subpoenas tha twere served by th is method, per i t s website and i t s instruct ionsto my associate .

Verizon 's second objection i s that the subpoena"const i tutes an abuse of the discovery process because Does 1-38have not been properly joined in the underlying action . . . "Verizon has no standing to ra ise th is objection, because i t i snot a party. In any event, a joinder motion i s premature. AsJudge Chen has noted, "discussion of joinder is not germane tothe motions to quash befor.e the Court, as the remedy forimproper jo inder i s severance. . . " Sony Music Entm't Inc. v.Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp.2d 556, 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).Furthermore, severance would not be proper a t th i s stage in thel i t iga t ion, as " [ t Jh i s action i s in i t s infancy, and eachdefendant wil l have ample time to challenge his inclusion in thel i t iga t ion." John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Does Nos. 1-27, 11 CIV.7627 WHP, 2012 WL 364048 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012) (Judge Pauleyholding in a s imi lar case tha t a motion to sever prior toproduction of a John Doe's ident i ty by his ISP was premature.)

Verizon 's th i rd objection is tha t the information thesubpoena seeks i s "nei ther relevant nor reasonably calculated tolead to the discovery of relevant information and imposes anundue burden on Verizon." The subpoena seeks the ident i t ies ofthe Verizon subscribers whose accounts were used to infringe ourc l ient ' s copyrights. This information i s highly l ikely to allowus to ident i fy the defendants in this action e i ther because the

DUNNEGAN &: SCILEPPI LLC

Case 1:12-cv-01980-KBF Document 7 Filed 05/08/12 Page 2 of 4
http://www.verizon.net/po1icies/vzcom/civilhttp://www.verizon.net/po1icies/vzcom/civil


3/4


individuals tha t infr inged our c l ient ' s works are the accountholders themselves or because the account holders wil l haveknowledge of who committed the infringement. Addit ional ly, itis unclear how production of 10 account holder IDs imposes anundue burden on Verizon in l igh t of the fact tha t we compensateVerizon a t i t s usual ra te of $45.00 per IP address sUbmitted.

Verizon's fourth objection i s tha t we have made ~ a n insuff ic ient showing tha t discovery of the ident ifyinginformation of Does 1-38 would be used for a proper purpose inthe current l i t iga t ion . " Contrary to Verizon's implication, oursubpoena does not fa l l within the scope of any of the categoriesof improper purposes contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g); wedo not seek to ~ t o harass, cause unnecessary delay, orneedlessly increase the cost of l i t iga t ion."

Verizon's f i f th objection is tha t the mere fact tha tmultiple works are a t issue in th i s su i t refutes ~ a n y al legat iontha t the large number of subscr ibers ident i f ied are acting inconcert. II We re i te ra te tha t quashing a subpoena i s not theproper remedy for misjoinder, and tha t , even i f th i s Court foundtha t the par t ies are potent ia l ly misjoined, severance wouldpremature at th i s stage of the l i t i ga t ion .

Verizon's sixth objection is tha t we seek ~ I n f o r m a t i o n tha t is protected from disclosure by th ird par t ies ' r ights ofprivacy and protect ions guaranteed by the Firs t Amendment."Even when defendants "have privacy in te res ts due to the natureof the subject infringement, those in te res t do not 'give way topla in t i f f [ ' s ] r igh t to use the judic ia l process to pursue whatappear to be meritor ious copyright infringement cla ims. ' " NextPhase Distribut ion, Inc. v. Does 1-138, 11 Civ. 9706 (KBF), 2012WL 691830 a t *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2012).

Verizon's seventh objection is that the subpoena"seeks to impose on Verizon obligations different from, orgreater than, those required by the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure or applicable Local Rules." This catch-a l l object ioni s inapplicable to th i s subpoena. Our subpoena does not require

DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI LLC

Case 1:12-cv-01980-KBF Document 7 Filed 05/08/12 Page 3 of 4


4/4


of Verizon anything beyond the scope of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure or applicable Local Rules. The subpoena seeksinformation, to which Verizon's has exclusive control andaccess, necessary to enforce our c l ien t ' s valid copyrights.

For the above l i s ted reasons, we respectfully requesttha t Your Honor compel Verizon to respond to the subpoenas.

Respectfully yours,~ ~ J J William Dunnegan

CC: Benjamin J . Fox, Esq. (Bye-mail)

VU--;SOl rl.-c.f ~ f 4 " " . Q f1...t 'J L . . . ~ ,,( co( (2 . . -t

verizon refuse

Documents