Malibu Media: Motion to Quash Denied in New York

This is a blog dedicated to updates on copyright infringement cases. We have handled more than 900 Malibu Media cases over the past seven years, helping each client figure out the best option for their individual situation. We can represent you in your case against Malibu Media. For more information about your subpoena visit our main website’s Malibu Media page.

In November 2018, Malibu Media alleged that defendant at IP address 72.229.110.129 had infringed several of their copyrights by illegally downloading several of their adult films.

On December 6, 2018, the court granted Malibu Media leave to serve a subpoena to the defendant’s internet service provider- Charter Communications, Inc.- in order to learn the defendant’s identity and address, and then to serve the defendant with a court summons.

The defendant filed a motion to quash on two grounds:

First, the defendant argued that Malibu Media’s Complaint was legally deficient on a ruling recently adopted by the Supreme Court.  Essentially, the defendant is saying this action should have been barred (for now) as Malibu Media doesn’t have the right to sue without a copyright certificate for each film.  (Click here to read a recent blog post on that decision).

Malibu Media then filed an Amended Complaint alleging that six of the copyrights at issue had been registered prior to filing the original Complaint, and that three more were registered prior to filing the Amended Complaint.

According to the Memorandum Opinion and Order by Jesse M. Furman, District Judge:

“Plaintiff’s second argument rehashes issues relating to personal jurisdiction that the Court resolved in Digital Sin. Def.’s Mem. 5-9. There, the Court held that the plaintiff’s allegations of personal jurisdiction relying on geolocation software are “sufficient at this stage of the proceedings.” Digital Sin, 2012 WL 2036035, at *3. The Court reached the same preliminary conclusion as to Plaintiff’s similar allegations in this case.”

Due to these two issues, the defendant’s motion to quash the Malibu Media subpoena was denied.

Charter Communications was instructed to respond to the subpoena no later than April 8, 2019.

The judge went on to note:

“Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, Plaintiff must continue to comply with the Court’s Order granting Defendant leave to proceed anonymously as John Doe; that means that Plaintiff must redact any information tending to reveal Defendant’s identity from its public filings, including proof of service, if any — while simultaneously filing unredacted versions under seal in accordance with the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Furman.”

Are you considering a motion to quash in your case against Malibu Media?

No matter how you decide to handle your copyright infringement case, it’s best to discuss all your options with an ISP Subpoena Defense specialist. 

We represent clients nationwide.  Click here for a free consultation.