## Facts

- Record company plaintiffs sued six unknown individuals (Does 1–6) for allegedly downloading and distributing copyrighted sound recordings through peer-to-peer software using Georgetown University’s network.
- Plaintiffs possessed only IP addresses and corresponding date-and-time information for the alleged activity.
- Plaintiffs sought leave to take expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference by serving a Rule 45 subpoena on Georgetown to obtain identifying information tied to the IP addresses.
- The subpoena request sought names, current and permanent addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and MAC addresses associated with the identified IP addresses at the relevant times.
- Because the information was held by an educational institution, production potentially implicated FERPA restrictions on disclosure of personally identifiable information from student education records.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed good cause under Rule 26(d) to obtain expedited discovery to identify anonymous Doe defendants through a Rule 45 subpoena to Georgetown.
2. Whether FERPA bars Georgetown from disclosing the requested identifying information, or permits disclosure under a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena with notice.
3. What limitations and procedural safeguards should govern the subpoena and the use of any produced identifying information.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs leave to take expedited discovery and authorized service of a Rule 45 subpoena on Georgetown before the Rule 26(f) conference.
- The court held that FERPA did not prohibit compliance where disclosure was made pursuant to a court-authorized process and affected students received notice and an opportunity to object.
- The court imposed conditions, including limiting the subpoena to identifying information, excluding content or unrelated records, and setting a return date (25 days) to permit motions to quash before compliance.
- The court limited use of produced identifying information to purposes related to the litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Expedited discovery before a Rule 26(f) conference may be permitted for good cause, including when early discovery is necessary to identify anonymous defendants and proceed with the case.
- Rule 45 subpoenas to third parties may be authorized and tailored to obtain only information necessary to identify Doe defendants.
- FERPA does not create an evidentiary privilege; it restricts disclosures by federally funded educational institutions but allows disclosure to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena, conditioned on reasonable prior notice to affected students unless notice is excused.
- Courts may require procedural protections—narrow scope, notice, time to object, and limits on use—to balance enforcement interests against privacy and fairness concerns for unidentified individuals.

## Conclusion

The court permitted expedited third-party discovery to identify anonymous alleged P2P infringers and held that FERPA allows Georgetown to disclose the limited identifying information under court-authorized process with notice and an opportunity to move to quash, subject to scope and use restrictions.


Warner Bros. Recs., Inc. v. Does 1–6, 527 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007)