Betternoi, LLC v. Aloizos et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 0:25-CV-60090-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
BETTERNOI, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
STAVROS ALOIZOS, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE
OF SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION FROM VERIZON, GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
RESPONSES, AND CANCELING MARCH 25, 2026 DISCOVERY HEARING
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff Betternoi, LLC’s Motion to Compel
Disclosure of Subscriber Information from Verizon, briefed at docket entries 154, 183, and 184.
The cause also comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses,
briefed at docket entries 157 and 160. 	The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the
record and is fully advised in the premises.
The 	Court 	set 	a 	hearing 	on 	the 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	Discovery 	Responses 	for
March 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. DE 156. However, upon review of the briefing, the Court concludes
that a hearing is unnecessary to resolve the discovery dispute, and the Court therefore CANCELS
the March 25 hearing. 	As set forth below, the Motion to Compel Disclosure of Subscriber
Information from Verizon is GRANTED, and the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Case 0:25-cv-60090-DSL Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 1 of 4

2
I. 	Motion to Compel Disclosure of Subscriber Information from Verizon
Plaintiff alleges in the Third Amended Complaint that it developed the proprietary program
BetterCMS Pro, an “application tool set utilized to deploy template websites.” DE 101 ¶¶ 156–
57. BetterCMS Pro enables Plaintiff to “quickly and efficiently build and customize its customers’
websites.” Id. ¶ 159. Plaintiff maintains that BetterCMS Pro is a trade secret. Id. ¶ 170. Plaintiff
further maintains that Defendants misappropriated that trade secret by using BetterCMS Pro to
build pornography websites for customers. Id. ¶¶ 179–81.
To substantiate its claims, Plaintiff served a subpoena on Verizon. DE 154-2 (subpoena).
The subpoena requests the production of 13 categories of documents. Id. at 9–10. Request #1 is
relevant to the Motion to Compel Disclosure of Subscriber Information. Request #1 asks for, “Any
and 	all 	documentation 	regarding 	the 	Verizon 	root 	directory 	account
https://gitlab.benmol.net/webworkspros/cms.git; root directory benmol.net and IP 108.35.195.52
from inception to present.” Id. at 9.
Plaintiff asks for an order compelling Verizon to respond to Request #1, including by
disclosing subscriber information. Verizon’s position is that, under federal law, it cannot respond
to Request #1 without a court order requiring it to do so. See 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1), (2) (prohibiting
a cable operator from disclosing personally identifiable subscriber information except under
limited circumstances, with one of those circumstances being when a court order authorizes
disclosure). Verizon does not oppose Plaintiff obtaining such a court order.
Defendants filed a response to the Motion to Compel Disclosure of Subscriber Information.
DE 183. But the response does not voice opposition to a court order requiring Verizon to respond
to Request #1. The response instead contends that Request #’s 6 through 13 ask for documents
outside of the scope of discovery. The Motion does not ask for relief with respect to Request #’s 6
Case 0:25-cv-60090-DSL Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 2 of 4

3
through 13; the Motion asks for relief with respect to Request #1. As Defendants have not opposed
the relief sought through the Motion, and as Verizon does not oppose that relief either, the Motion
is unopposed.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Disclosure of Subscriber Information from Verizon [DE 154]
is GRANTED. 	Verizon must respond to Request #1 of the subpoena served on November 24,
2025 [DE 154-2]. Verizon must comply with all requirements under the law when responding to
Request #1 of the subpoena, including the requirement under 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) to notify
the subscriber of this Order. The parties may only use the information produced in response to
Request #1 of the subpoena for the purpose of this lawsuit.
II. 	Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
In the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Plaintiff asks that Defendants be ordered
to 	supplement 	their 	responses 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	Interrogatories 	and 	Requests 	for 	Production.
According to Plaintiff, the parties conferred about Defendants’ responses, and Defendants agreed
to supplement their responses but did not provide a date by which they would do so. 	Plaintiff
contends that, as of the date it filed the Motion, Defendants had not served their supplements.
In their response to the Motion, Defendants acknowledge agreeing to supplement their
discovery responses. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
insofar as, within 10 days of the date of this Order, Defendants must serve on Plaintiffs their
most up-to-date amended discovery responses together with responsive material. 	The amended
discovery responses and any objections must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida, and the Order Setting Discovery Procedures
at docket entry 56.
Case 0:25-cv-60090-DSL Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 3 of 4

4
Plaintiff did not brief the substance of any requests or objections in the Motion. Plaintiff
did attach conferral communications to the Motion, DE 157-4 to -6, but Plaintiff cannot make
arguments to the Court simply by incorporating conferral communications by reference.
See DE 56 at 3 (“The parties must make their arguments in the briefing itself and may not
incorporate by reference or otherwise direct the Court to review communications between counsel
(such as conferral letters or emails) to understand their arguments.”). The Court will not rule on
the merits of any requests or objections because Plaintiff did not brief them. To the extent Plaintiff
sought to have the Court overrule any particular objections, the request is DENIED due to
Plaintiff’s failure to properly brief the request.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 5th day of
March, 2026.
___________________________________
PANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 0:25-cv-60090-DSL Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 4 of 4