New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1 - 1474

Filing 40

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 22 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10
11
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NEW SENSATIONS, INC.,

No. C 11-2770 MEJ

12
Plaintiff,
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING DOE
DEFENDANT #37's MOTION TO
DISMISS (I.P. Address 108.34.138.72)

DOES 1-1,474,
Docket No. 22

15

Defendants.

16
_____________________________________/
17
18

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against 1,474

19

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

20

Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Big Bang Theory: A XXX Parody”), using an internet peer-to-peer file

21

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

22

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

23

Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 13. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve

24

subpoenas on Does 1-1,474’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil

25

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

26

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

27

provided Does 1-1,474 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-1,474 30 days from

28

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

1
2

modify the subpoena). Id.
On November 1, 2011, Doe Defendant #37 (I.P. Address 108.34.138.72) filed a Motion to

3

Dismiss. Dkt. No. 22. In his motion, Doe #37 requests that the subpoena be quashed as to him and

4

the case against him dismissed because he does not reside, work, or conduct business in California;

5

has not contracted to supply services in California; the IP address that is identified as assigned to

6

him is not within the jurisdiction of this Court; he has no real property in California; he does not

7

consent to personal jurisdiction in California; he has no business or personal contacts in California;

8

and he has no significant relationship with California. Id. at 3.

9

In response to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff has now filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 36. In its

because he is attempting to appear anonymously. Plaintiff that the Court, at a minimum, require

12
For the Northern District of California

response, Plaintiff argues that it has no means of testing the truthfulness of Defendant’s statements

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Defendant to provide his identity and submit a sworn declaration regarding jurisdiction. The Court

13

agrees. As there is no basis for giving any credence to an unsworn statement made by an

14

anonymous person, the Court finds it inappropriate to quash the subpoena, thereby dismissing Doe

15

Defendant #37 from this case, before Plaintiff has an opportunity to learn Doe #37’s identity and to

16

determine whether jurisdiction is proper.

17

Accordingly, Doe Defendant #37’s motion to quash is DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: November 15, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2