Professional Documents
Culture Documents
067-2 Verizons Objections To Subpoena Filed Earlier
067-2 Verizons Objections To Subpoena Filed Earlier
v.
OBECTIONS TO MALIBU MEDIA
LLCS SUBPOENA TO VERIZON
WILLIAM SHARP,
Defendant.
Verizon objects to the subpoena and to each request therein on the grounds that
the subpoena fails to provide sufficient time for Verizon to process and respond to the subpoena,
nor does it provide even the minimum notice customarily provided under the Federal Rules; the
la-1299041
subpoena provides insufficient notice for Verizon to conduct an investigation of the facts alleged
in the complaint and the topics identified and materials sought in the subpoena.
2.
Verizon objects to the location of the deposition, which was set unilaterally and
without Verizons counsels prior consultation. Under the Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), [a] subpoena
may command a person to attend a . . . deposition . . . within 100 miles of where the person
resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A).
Moreover, [a] subpoena may command production of documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A). The proposed
location for the deposition is San Angelo, Texas. Verizons employees who are likely to have
knowledge of the topics identified in the subpoena are located near Verizons offices in
Arlington, Virginia. Verizon therefore objects on the grounds that a subpoena may not command
Verizon or its employees to attend a deposition more than 100 miles away of its residence,
employment, or usual place of business.
3.
Verizon further objects to the subpoena in its entirety on the grounds that a
deposition subpoena to a third party is unnecessary, nor is it the efficient for the litigants in light
of the availability of other means of discovery that are available. The information sought by
Plaintiff can and should be sought from parties to the litigation, not from a third party.
4.
Verizon further objects to the subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is
not relevant to the underlying litigation. The subpoena poses a burden that outweighs any
minimal probative value of third-party discovery and seeks to impose an obligation on Verizon
that is beyond obligations required by the scope of permissible discovery.
5.
Verizon further objects to the subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is
protected from disclosure by the Cable Communications Policy Act, third parties rights of
privacy, and protections guaranteed by the First Amendment and applicable state privacy laws.
2
la-1299041
6.
Verizon obligations different from, or greater than, those required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or applicable Local Rules.
7.
Each of the foregoing objections is incorporated into each of the responses to the
3
la-1299041
4
la-1299041
5
la-1299041
6
la-1299041
permissible discovery. Verizon further objects to this Request on the grounds that the
information sought by Plaintiff can and should be sought from parties to the litigation, not from a
third party. Verizon further specifically objects to the timing of the Request, which provides
insufficient notice for Verizon to process and respond to the subpoena.
DOCUMENT REQUEST (f):
Any and all document(s) that refers, relates to or comprises a record that the Defendant
was the internet subscriber assigned IP address 96.252.235.193 on July 30, 2014 at 18:23:16
UTC.
OBJECTION TO DOCUMENT REQUEST (f):
Verizon incorporates its general objections by reference. Verizon objects to this Request
on the basis that the use of the term Defendant renders the Request vague and ambiguous.
Verizon further objects to this Request on the basis that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome. Verizon further objects to this Request on the basis that it seeks information that is
not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Verizon
further objects to this Request on the basis that it seeks confidential or proprietary documents
belonging to Verizon. Verizon further objects to this Request on the basis it seeks information
that is not relevant to the underlying litigation, and seeks information that is protected from
disclosure by the Cable Communications Policy Act. Verizon further objects to this Request on
the basis that Verizon is not authorized to release the information sought, to the extent a court
order is required. See 47 U.S.C. 551. The Request poses a burden that outweighs any minimal
probative value of third-party discovery and seeks to impose an obligation on Verizon that is
beyond obligations required by the scope of permissible discovery. Verizon further objects to
this Request on the grounds that the information sought by Plaintiff can and should be sought
7
la-1299041
from parties to the litigation, not from a third party. Verizon further specifically objects to the
timing of the Request, which provides insufficient notice for Verizon to process and respond to
the subpoena.
8
la-1299041
comply with the Federal Rules, provide insufficient notice to Verizon, and create and undue
burden on Verizon by seeking testimony in Texas.
DEPOSITION TOPIC (b):
Discussion of any DMCA notice Verizon forwarded to Defendant.
OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC (b):
Verizon incorporates its general objections by reference. Verizon objects to this Topic on
the basis that the use of the terms Defendant and DMCA notice in this context renders the
Topic vague and ambiguous. Verizon further objects to this Topic on the basis that it seeks
information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Verizon further objects to this Topic on the basis that it implicates third parties rights
to privacy. Verizon further objects to this Topic on the basis it seeks information that is not
relevant to the underlying litigation, and seeks information that is protected from disclosure by
the Cable Communications Policy Act. The Topic poses a burden that outweighs any minimal
probative value of third-party discovery and seeks to impose an obligation on Verizon that is
beyond obligations required by the scope of permissible discovery. Verizon further objects to
this Topic on the basis that it seeks information that is equally available to a party in this action
as it is to Verizon. The information sought by Plaintiff can and should be sought from parties to
the litigation, not from a third party. Verizon further specifically objects to the proposed location
and the timing of the deposition, which do not comply with the Federal Rules, provide
insufficient notice to Verizon, and create and undue burden on Verizon by seeking testimony in
Texas.
DEPOSITION TOPIC (c):
Discussion of any notice of copyright infringement Verizon forwarded to Defendant.
9
la-1299041
10
la-1299041
further objects to this Topic on the basis that it seeks information that is not relevant or
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Verizon further objects to
this Topic on the basis it seeks information that is not relevant to the underlying litigation, and
seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the Cable Communications Policy Act.
The Topic poses a burden that outweighs any minimal probative value of third-party discovery
and seeks to impose an obligation on Verizon that is beyond obligations required by the scope of
permissible discovery. Verizon objects to this Topic on the grounds that the information sought
by Plaintiff can and should be sought from parties to the litigation, not from a third party.
Verizon further specifically objects to the proposed location and the timing of the deposition,
which do not comply with the Federal Rules, provide insufficient notice to Verizon, and create
and undue burden on Verizon by seeking testimony in Texas.
DEPOSITION TOPIC (e):
Discussion of Verizons policies and procedures regarding the installation and
maintenance of passwords on a subscribers modem or router.
OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC (e):
Verizon incorporates its general objections by reference. Verizon objects to this Topic on
the basis that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Verizon further objects to this Topic on
the basis that it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Verizon further objects to this Topic on the basis it seeks
information that is not relevant to the underlying litigation, and seeks information that is
protected from disclosure by the Cable Communications Policy Act. The Topic poses a burden
that outweighs any minimal probative value of third-party discovery and seeks to impose an
obligation on Verizon that is beyond obligations required by the scope of permissible discovery.
11
la-1299041
Verizon further objects to this Topic on the basis that it seeks confidential or proprietary
documents belonging to Verizon. Verizon objects to this Topic on the grounds that the
information sought by Plaintiff can and should be sought from parties to the litigation, not from a
third party. Verizon further specifically objects to the proposed location and the timing of the
deposition, which do not comply with the Federal Rules, provide insufficient notice to Verizon,
and create and undue burden on Verizon by seeking testimony in Texas.
DEPOSITION TOPIC (g):
Discussion of the records proving that the Defendant was the internet subscriber assigned
IP address 96.252.235.193 on July 30, 2014 at 18:23:16 UTC.
OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC (g):
Verizon incorporates its general objections by reference. Verizon objects to this Topic on
the basis that the use of the terms records and Defendant in this context renders the Topic
vague and ambiguous. Verizon further objects to this Topic on the basis that it is overly broad
and unduly burdensome. Verizon further objects to this Topic on the basis that it seeks
information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Verizon further objects to this Topic on the basis that it seeks confidential or
proprietary documents belonging to Verizon. Verizon further objects to this Topic on the basis it
seeks information that is not relevant to the underlying litigation, and seeks information that is
protected from disclosure by the Cable Communications Policy Act. Verizon further objects to
this Topic on the basis that Verizon is not authorized to discuss the information sought, to the
extent a court order is required. See 47 U.S.C. 551. The Topic poses a burden that outweighs
any minimal probative value of third-party discovery and seeks to impose an obligation on
Verizon that is beyond obligations required by the scope of permissible discovery. Verizon
12
la-1299041
objects to this Topic on the grounds that the information sought by Plaintiff can and should be
sought from parties to the litigation, not from a third party. Verizon further specifically objects
to the proposed location and the timing of the deposition, which do not comply with the Federal
Rules, provide insufficient notice to Verizon, and create and undue burden on Verizon by
seeking testimony in Texas.
DEPOSITION TOPIC (f):
Explanation of the process Verizon used to correlate the IP address, 96.252.235.193 with
the Defendant in the instant matter.
OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC (f):
Verizon incorporates its general objections by reference. Verizon objects to this Topic on
the basis that the use of the term Defendant renders the Topic vague and ambiguous. Verizon
further objects to this Topic on the basis that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Verizon
further objects to this Topic on the basis that it seeks information that is not relevant or
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Verizon further objects to
this Topic on the basis it seeks information that is not relevant to the underlying litigation, and
seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the Cable Communications Policy Act.
The Topic poses a burden that outweighs any minimal probative value of third-party discovery
and seeks to impose an obligation on Verizon that is beyond obligations required by the scope of
permissible discovery. Verizon further objects to this Topic on the basis that it seeks
confidential or proprietary information belonging to Verizon. Verizon objects to this Topic on
the grounds that the information sought by Plaintiff can and should be sought from parties to the
litigation, not from a third party. Verizon further specifically objects to the proposed location
and the timing of the deposition, which do not comply with the Federal Rules, provide
13
la-1299041