Boy Racer, Inc v. Does 1-52

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE LIMITED DISCOVERY PRIOR TO RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE, re 6 . Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on May 31, 2011.(psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2011)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 BOY RACER, INC., Plaintiff, 12 13 v. DOES 1-52, 14 Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 11-CV-2329-PSG ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE LIMITED DISCOVERY PRIOR TO RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE (Re: Docket No. 6) 16 On May 11, 2011, Plaintiff Boy Racer, Inc. (“Boy Racer”) filed this lawsuit for copyright 17 infringement against 52 separate “Doe” Defendants. Ordinarily, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) precludes 18 discovery before the conference required under the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Pursuant to the court’s 19 scheduling order, the parties were to meet as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than July 12, 20 2011. Boy Racer now moves for leave to take discovery in advance of July 12, 2011. Boy Racer 21 specifically seeks leave to serve subpoenas on several enumerated ISPs to obtain the true identities 22 of Doe Defendants for purpose of service in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 23 Boy Racer’s motion raises the same issues as those recently addressed by the court in 24 response to a near identical motion for leave to take expedited discovery in Diabolic Video 25 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-2099.1 There, the court granted leave to take expedited discovery, but 26 1 27 28 See Diabolic Video Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-2099, No. 5:10-cv-05865-PSG, Amended Order Granting-In-Part Motion for Leave To Take Limited Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference (Docket No. 16). 1 Case No.: 11-2329 ORDER 1 only as to Doe 1. As to Does 2 through 2,099, the court severed Does 2 through 2,099 and ordered 2 the claims against Does 2 through 2,099 reassigned to an Article III judge. The court further 3 recommended that the claims against Does 2 through 2,099 be dismissed without prejudice and, if 4 refiled within 20 days, deemed continuation of the original action for purposes of the statute of 5 limitations. 6 The court sees no reason to treat Boy Racer’s motion in this case any differently. 7 Accordingly, Boy Racer’s motion therefore is GRANTED, but only as to Doe 1 and as follows. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Boy Racer is allowed to serve immediate discovery on 9 Doe 1’s ISP listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint by serving a Rule 45 subpoena that seeks United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 information sufficient to identify Doe 1, including the name, addresses, telephone numbers, and 11 email addresses of Doe 1. Boy Racer’s counsel shall include a copy of this order. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ISP will have 30 days from the date of service upon it 13 to serve Doe 1 with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this order. The ISP may serve Doe 1 14 using any reasonable means, including written notice sent to Doe 1’s last known address, 15 transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service. The ISP and Doe 1 each shall have 16 30 days from the date of service to file any motions in this court contesting the subpoena (including 17 a motion to quash or modify the subpoena). If that 30-day period lapses without Doe 1 or the ISP 18 contesting the subpoena, the ISP shall have 10 days to produce to Boy Racer the information 19 responsive to the subpoena with respect to Doe 1. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ISP shall not assess any charge to Boy Racer in 21 advance of providing the information requested in the subpoena, and that the ISP that receives a 22 subpoena and elects to charge for the costs of production shall provide a billing summary and cost 23 reports that serve as a basis for such billing summary and any costs claimed by the ISP. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ISP shall preserve all subpoenaed information 25 pending the ISP’s delivering such information to Boy Racer or the final resolution of a timely filed 26 and granted motion to quash the subpoena with respect to such information. 27 28 2 Case No.: 11-2329 ORDER 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any information disclosed to Boy Racer in response to a 2 subpoena may be used by Boy Racer solely for the purpose of protecting its rights under the 3 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Does 2 through 52 are SEVERED from this action and 5 that the claims against Does 2 through 52 be reassigned to an Article III judge. In view of the 6 misjoinder described above, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the claims against Does 7 2 through 52 be dismissed without prejudice. The undersigned further recommends that if Boy 8 Racer can refile separate complaints against Does 2 through 52 within 20 days of this order, such 9 actions should be deemed a continuation of the original action for purposes of the statute of United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 limitations.2 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: May 31, 2011 ________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 27 28 This court is ordering reassignment to an Article III judge because, absent the consent of all parties, a Magistrate Judge does not have authority to make case-dispositive rulings. See, e.g., Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 549 (9th Cir. 1988). 3 Case No.: 11-2329 ORDER