Boy Racer, Inc. v Doe

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/30/2012 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Discovery of Identifying Information is submitted without a hearing, and the 5/10/2012 hearing on plaintiff's motion is VACATED. Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Discovery of Identifying Information is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BOY RACER, INC., 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-03072 MCE KJN v. PHILIP WILLIAMSON, 14 Defendant. ORDER / 15 16 Presently before the court is plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Discovery of 17 Identifying Information, which seeks an order compelling non-party internet service providers 18 (“ISPs”) to respond to plaintiff’s third-party subpoenas despite the fact that the record supports 19 that: (1) plaintiff has not actually served any such subpoenas on any ISP pursuant to Federal Rule 20 of Civil Procedure 45; and (2) no ISP has moved to quash or otherwise objected to a third-party 21 subpoena or the discovery sought.1 Because oral argument would not materially aid the 22 resolution of the pending motion, this matter is submitted on the briefs and record without a 23 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E. Dist. Local Rule 230(g). In short, the undersigned denies 24 plaintiff’s motion as prematurely filed, as no actual dispute is presently before the court. 25 1 26 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 1 Plaintiff commenced this copyright infringement case against “John Doe,” 2 alleging that unknown defendants, one of whom was associated with a specific Internet Protocol 3 (“IP”) address, were infringing on plaintiff’s copyrighted works through use of a peer-to-peer file 4 sharing or distribution network. (See Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, 5.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an 5 Amended Complaint that names Philip Williamson as the only defendant, but which still alleges 6 a civil conspiracy among Williamson and multiple unknown co-conspirators (Dkt. No. 7). 7 Williamson filed an answer to plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 9) in 8 which Williamson admits to the willful infringement of plaintiff’s copyrights, as well as his 9 participation in the alleged conspiracy. (See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28-33, 35-39.) It appears that 10 the parties have already conducted their discovery conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 11 Procedure 26(f), as they filed a Joint Case Management Conference Report and Rule 26(f) 12 Discovery Plan on March 9, 2012 (Dkt. No. 10). 13 On March 29, 2012, plaintiff filed its Motion for Discovery of Identifying 14 Information. It is motion, plaintiff represents that although it was able to identify Williamson as 15 an infringer of its copyrights, it is presently unable to identify the actual name of any of 16 Williamson’s “joint tortfeasors.” (See Hansmeier Decl. ¶ 20.) However, plaintiff asserts that it 17 has compiled a list of unique IP addresses associated with the alleged co-conspirators at the time 18 of the alleged infringement, as well as the ISPs associated with those IP addresses. (Id. ¶ 20, 25- 19 26 & Ex. A.) Through its motion for discovery, plaintiff seeks an order that compels the non- 20 party ISPs to comply with subpoenas requesting the identities of the subscribers affiliated with 21 the IP addresses on defendant’s list of IP addresses. 22 The court denies plaintiff’s motion in two respects. First, plaintiff’s motion 23 suggests that it is seeking leave from the court to conduct “immediate” third-party discovery. 24 (See Mot. for Discovery at 1.) To the extent that plaintiff seeks immediate or expedited 25 discovery, the court denies plaintiff’s motion as moot. The parties have already conducted their 26 Rule 26(f) discovery conference, and, therefore, plaintiff may commence discovery without leave 2 1 of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) (stating that with certain exceptions, “[a] party may not seek 2 discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)”). 3 Second, the court denies plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling the non-party 4 ISPs’ compliance with yet-to-be-served subpoenas as prematurely filed. Plaintiff’s motion does 5 not suggest that it has served subpoenas on any of the non-party ISPs seeking the identities of the 6 subscribers associated with the IP addresses identified as being engaged in alleged acts of 7 copyright infringement. Furthermore, the motion does not suggest that plaintiff has informally 8 requested, and been refused, such information from any ISP. Nevertheless, plaintiff seeks an 9 order compelling compliance with subpoenas that have not actually been served, i.e., plaintiff 10 seeks an order compelling compliance with a discovery obligation that does not actually exist. 11 Plaintiff offers arguments in support of its contentions that the discovery sought is relevant; not 12 overly burdensome; and does not prejudice certain “anonymous speech interests.” (See Mot. for 13 Discovery at 4-10.) But plaintiff’s discussion is entirely premature, as plaintiff has not served 14 any Rule 45 subpoenas. And as one might logically expect, the record does not suggest that any 15 ISP has moved to quash any subpoena or otherwise objected to the production of the information 16 sought by plaintiff. The court will not assess the merits of, or provide an advisory opinion 17 addressing, plaintiff’s one-sided arguments when no subpoena has even been propounded or 18 challenged. 19 The court briefly addresses plaintiff’s passing and factually unsupported argument 20 that “many of the ISPs are ‘cable providers’ within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) and 21 a ‘court order’ is required to compel a ‘cable provider’ to disclose the identity of its subscribers 22 under that statute.”2 (Mot. for Discovery at 2.) Plaintiff’s argument is flawed or incomplete for 23 at least two reasons. First, plaintiff has not specifically identified which ISPs at issue are actually 24 2 25 26 In relevant part, 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) provides that a cable operator may disclose personally identifiable information concerning a subscriber if the disclosure is “made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the order is directed.” 3 1 “cable operators” as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 522(5); plaintiff’s brief argument is unsupported by 2 any specific or substantiated facts. Thus, even if plaintiff’s argument were otherwise well-taken, 3 the court would be unable to fashion an appropriate order tailored only to the ISPs that are cable 4 operators. But in any event, and as discussed above, no discovery subpoena is presently awaiting 5 a response. Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument does not warrant an ex ante order compelling 6 compliance with subpoenas that have not been served. 7 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. 9 10 Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery of Identifying Information (Dkt. No. 11) is submitted without a hearing, and the May 10, 2012 hearing on plaintiff’s motion is VACATED. 11 2. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery of Identifying Information is denied. DATED: April 30, 2012 14 15 16 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?