Millennium TGA, Inc. v. DoeMOTION for Protective OrderS.D. Tex.September 28, 2012 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Millennium TGA, Inc. * * Plaintiff, * v. * Civil No.: 4:11-cv-04501 John Doe * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR NON-PARTY DOE (IP Address 50.46.192.24) NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Non-Party Doe (IP address 50.46.192.24) (“Movant”), who hereby moves for a protective order. Movant states the following in support thereof: I. BACKGROUND Millennium TGA, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), filed its Complaint on December 20, 2011 alleging that hundreds of “John Does” violated its copyright to the video production titled “Shemale Yum – Jenna Comes A-Knocking,” (“the Work”). The Court granted Plaintiff’s request to take discovery on February 9, 2012. To uncover Does’ identifying information, Plaintiff issued subpoenas to Defendants’ Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including Movant's ISP, Frontier Communications. Plaintiff utilizes an Internet Protocol (IP) address to identify each of the alleged infringers. Movant was identified by IP address 50.46.192.24. Plaintiff’s Complaint is ostensibly about the protection of Plaintiff’s copyright to the Work, however this litigation is just one of countless actions brought by this Plaintiff and other Case 4:11-cv-04501 Document 111 Filed in TXSD on 09/28/12 Page 1 of 4 2 similar Plaintiffs claiming copyright protection for pornographic films. To your Movant’s knowledge and belief, very few of these similar actions have ever been brought to trial. The fact that few similar cases have been brought to trial is significant. It evidences the real purpose of these suits: not to enforce copyrights, but to bully Defendants, such as John Doe, into financial settlements to avoid being publicly associated with a pornographic video company and avoid being publicly accused of illegally downloading pornography. V. MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Movant respectfully requests that the Court enter a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c): “Upon motion….accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending….may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense.” Thus, Movant requests that this Court issue a protective order requiring Plaintiff to not publicly disclose the identity or address of this defendant and requiring Plaintiff to file under seal any documents containing Movant’s identifying information. A “[protective order is warranted because] ISP subscribers may be innocent third parties, the subject matter of the suit deals with sensitive and personal matters, and the jurisdictional and procedural complications might otherwise dissuade innocent parties from contesting all allegations.” Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1- 5698, 2011 WL 5362068 (N.D.Ca. Nov. 4, 2011). All of these concerns are present in the instant matter. The privacy interest of innocent third parties weighs heavily against the public’s interest in access to court documents. Id. at *4 (citing Gardner v. Newsday, Inc., 895 F.2d 74, 79-80 (2d Case 4:11-cv-04501 Document 111 Filed in TXSD on 09/28/12 Page 2 of 4 3 Cir. 1990). Also, requests for pseudonymity have been granted when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature. Id. (citing Does I thru XXII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F. 2d 1058, 1068 (9 th Cir. 2000). An allegation that an individual illegally downloaded adult entertainment likely goes to matters of a sensitive and highly personal nature, including one’s sexuality. Id. Therefore, Movant requests that the Court issue a protective order pursuant to Rule 26 (c), requiring Plaintiff to not publicly disclose the identity or address of this Movant and file under seal any documents in this case containing Movant’s name and address. VI. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH F.R.C.P. 26(c) The undersigned hereby certifies that Movant has in good faith attempted to confer with Plaintiff as required by F.R.C.P. 26(c), but Plaintiff’s counsel and Movant’s counsel were not able to come to an agreement. VII. CONCLUSION Having stated the foregoing, Movant (Non-Party Doe IP Address 50.46.192.24) should be granted a protective order requiring Plaintiff to not publicly disclose the identity or address of this Movant, and file under seal any documents in this case containing Movant’s name and address. Case 4:11-cv-04501 Document 111 Filed in TXSD on 09/28/12 Page 3 of 4 4 Respectfully submitted, Christina N. Boffen, Esq. W. Scarth Clark, Esq. Bar #29851 (U.S. Dist Ct for MD) Texas Bar No. 04302200 The Law Office of Mark N. Melasky, Esq. Christina N. Boffen Louisiana Bar No. 34326 216 N. Crain Hwy Koeppel Traylor Suite 202A 2030 St. Charles Ave. Glen Burnie, MD 21061 New Orleans, LA 70130 (410) 718-2929 (504) 598-1000 Fax: (410) 747-3741 Fax: (504) 524-1024 cboffen@gmail.com sclark@koeppeltraylor.com mmelasky@koeppeltraylor.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 28 th day of September 2012, a copy of the foregoing was electronically submitted by W. Scarth Clark of Koeppel Traylor, to the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filings to Millennium TGA, Inc. Christina N. Boffen, Esq. The Law Office of Christina N. Boffen 216 N. Crain Hwy, Suite 202A Glen Burnie, MD 21061 (410) 718-2929 Fax: (410) 747-3741 cboffen@gmail.com Case 4:11-cv-04501 Document 111 Filed in TXSD on 09/28/12 Page 4 of 4
