Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2590

Filing 63

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 46 Motion to Dismiss; denying 46 Motion to Quash IP Address 68.192.118.56 (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

Northern District of California

8
9
PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,

No. C 11-2766 MEJ

10
Plaintiff,
v.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DOES 1-2,590,

13

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH (IP ADDRESS 68.192.118.56)

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

Docket No. 46

14
15

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. filed this lawsuit against 2,590 Doe

16

Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to

17

Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Real Female Orgasms 10”), using an internet peer-to-peer file sharing

18

network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322. Compl.

19

¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to

20

Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 12. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve subpoenas

21

on Does 1-2,590’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22

45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including the name,

23

address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs provided

24

Does 1-2,590 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-2,590 30 days from the date

25

of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the

26

subpoena). Id.

27
28

Now before the Court is a Motion to Quash/Dismiss, filed by a Doe Defendant identified
only by the IP address 68.192.118.56. Dkt. No. 46. In the motion, Doe Defendant argues that the

1

Court lacks jurisdiction and that venue is improper. However, the Court finds that a motion based

2

on these grounds is premature. See, e.g., New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1-1,745, 2011 WL 2837610,

3

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2011); Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Smith, No. 10-0455, 2011 WL

4

1807416, at *9 (D.D.C. May 12, 2011); Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1–5,000, No. 10-0873, WL

5

1807438, at *8 (D.D.C. May 12, 2011). Rule 12(b)(2) permits defendants to move to dismiss for

6

lack of personal jurisdiction. Although the Doe Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the action

7

against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, he is not yet a defendant. If and when Plaintiff names

8

him as a defendant, he will be able to raise this defense. Once Plaintiff amasses enough evidence and

9

names the Does, it will then have the burden to present a prima facie case supporting personal

F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003). At that time, the Doe Defendant may present his affidavit asserting

12
For the Northern District of California

jurisdiction over defendants. See Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

that he has never engaged in business with Plaintiff and that his activities with the forum state do not

13

meet the requisite minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction. With evidence from both

14

sides, jurisdiction will be decided on a full record. At this time, however, without any named

15

defendants, the motion is not yet ripe. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and may be

16

brought again once Plaintiff names the Doe Defendant as a defendant or when the Doe Defendant

17

has identified himself.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: December 1, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2