Capstone Studios Corp. v. Does 1-6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 25-cv-03561-JLK-CYC
CAPSTONE STUDIOS, CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-6,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 23, 2026.
For good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery of Information Prior to a
Rule 26(f) Conference” filed November 6, 2025, ECF No. 5, as follows.
Plaintiff’s Motion alleges that the Doe Defendants, identified only by their internet
protocol (“IP”) addresses, have infringed on Plaintiff’s copyrighted work by using the internet
and a “BitTorrent” protocol to reproduce, distribute, display, or perform Plaintiff’s protected
media. Plaintiff requests permission from the Court to serve limited, immediate discovery on
Defendants’ Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. The purpose of
this discovery is to obtain additional information concerning Defendants’ identities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) proscribes seeking discovery before Rule 26(f) conferral, but this
prohibition is not absolute. Courts may authorize discovery upon a showing of good cause. See
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-27, No. 12-cv-00406-REB-KMT, 2012 WL 629111, at *1
(D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2012) (collecting cases). “Expedited discovery should be limited, however,
and narrowly tailored to seek information necessary to support expedited or preliminary relief.”
Avaya, Inc. v. Acumen Telecom Corp., No. 10-cv-03075-CMA-BNB, 2011 WL 9293, at *2 (D.
Colo. Jan. 3, 2011).
The Court finds good cause for some limited expedited discovery. But the Complaint
employs “swarm joinder” in its inclusion of six separate defendants, each of whom allegedly
downloaded the work in question at different dates and times. ECF No. 1-1. And “a growing
number of district courts have recently held that swarm joinder is not appropriate,” PHE, Inc. v.
Does 1-105, No. 12-cv-03342-WJM-KLM, 2013 WL 66506, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2013), as
well as the D.C. Circuit. AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1–1058, 752 F.3d 990, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
These courts sever all but the first named defendant, see LHF Prods, Inc. v. Boughton, 299 F.
Supp. 3d 1104, 1112 (D. Nev. 2017), which here is the defendant identified by IP address
24.9.236.48. ECF No. 1-1 at 1.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03561-JLK-CYC Document 15 filed 01/23/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

2
The Court therefore finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff’s motion only as to that
defendant (“Defendant 1”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted as follows. Plaintiff may
serve a third-party subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 on the ISP with the limited purpose of
ascertaining the identity of Defendant 1. The subpoena shall be limited to providing Plaintiff
with the name and address of the subscriber (Defendant 1) to whom the ISP has assigned an IP
address. With the subpoena, Plaintiff shall also serve a copy of this Order. The ISP shall notify
the subscriber that his/her identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. Finally, the Court
emphasizes that Plaintiff may use the information disclosed in response to the subpoena only for
the purpose of protecting and enforcing its rights as set forth in its Complaint, ECF No. 1. The
Court cautions Plaintiff that improper use of this information may result in sanctions. The motion
is otherwise denied.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03561-JLK-CYC Document 15 filed 01/23/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2