Bungie Inc v. Fisher

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 BUNGIE INC., 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-1143-MLP 10 11 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF BUNGIE, INC.’S UNOPPOSED 12 JOSHUA FISHER, et al., MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THIRD- PARTY DISCLOSURE IN RESPONSE 13 Defendants. TO SUBPOENAS 14

15 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Bungie Inc.’s Unopposed Motion “to 16 Authorize Third-Party Disclosure in Response to Subpoenas” (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). (Pl.’s Mot. 17 (dkt. # 31).) Plaintiff moves for an Order to allow subpoenaed third-party entities, including, but 18 not limited to, Verizon, Inc., to respond to those subpoenas pursuant to the Cable 19 Communications Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). (Id. at 1, 3-5.) This Court previously 20 21 found good cause to authorize early third-party discovery in this matter, authorizing Plaintiff to 22 serve third-party subpoenas on several entities to further its investigation into identifying 23 unknown Defendants allegedly responsible for developing “Ring-1” cheat software for Destiny 24 2, Plaintiff’s online multiplayer, first-person shooter video game. (See dkt. ## 27, 30.) Per 25 Plaintiff, Verizon’s subpoena response agent confirmed that Verizon does not oppose this 26 27 motion, and Verizon requested Plaintiff pursue this Order so that Verizon could legally comply 1 with the issued subpoena pursuant to § 551(c)(2)(B). (Schmeyer Decl. (dkt. # 32) at ¶¶ 3, 5-6.) 2 3 The Cable Communications Privacy Act generally prohibits a cable operator from 4 disclosing “personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior 5 written or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned . . . .”1 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). However, 6 a cable operator may disclose such information if the disclosure is made pursuant to a court order 7 and the cable operator notifies the subscriber of the order. Id., § 551(c)(2)(B). Where good cause 8 has been demonstrated for early discovery, disclosure of such information is appropriate under 9 10 this exception to § 551. See MG Premium Ltd. v. Does 1-20, 2020 WL 1675741, at *1-2 (W.D. 11 Wash. Apr. 6, 2020); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 2018 WL 1427002, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12 22, 2018). 13 The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Motion (dkt. # 31), the supporting declaration, 14 and Verizon’s lack of opposition, and finding good cause, hereby ORDERS as follows: 15 1. Plaintiff’s Motion (dkt. # 31) is GRANTED. 16 2. Any subpoenaed entity which qualifies as a “cable operator” in this matter, as 17 18 defined by 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), must provide the subscriber with notice of this Order pursuant 19 to 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). 20 3. Any subpoenaed entity which qualifies as a “cable operator” in this matter shall 21 22 1 A “cable operator” is: 23 [A]ny person or group of persons (A) who provides cable service over a cable 24 system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any 25 arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system. 26 47 U.S.C. § 522(5). 27 have seven (7) days after service of any subpoenas to notify the subscriber(s) that their identity 1 has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. Any subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have 2 3 twenty-one (21) days from the date of such notice to file a responsive pleading or a motion to 4 quash. 5 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2024. 6 A 7 MICHELLE L. PETERSON 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27