Berlin MediaArt e.k. v. Does 1 through 654
Filing
12
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY PRIOR TO RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE (Dkt. Nos. 2, 11). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/18/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
BERLIN MEDIA ART e.k.,
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
Case No.: 11-03770 (JSC)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR DISCOVERY PRIOR TO RULE 26(f)
CONFERENCE (Dkt. Nos. 2, 11)
DOES 1 – 654,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
This case is one of several ―mass copyright‖ cases filed in this District on behalf of various
plaintiffs against thousands of doe defendants accused of using BitTorrent technology to illegally
19
download copyrighted files from the internet. See, e.g., Boy Racer v. Does 2–52, Case No. 11–283420
21
LHK (PSG); Boy Racer v. Does 1-52, Case No. 11-2329-PSG; Pacific Century Int‘l, Ltd. v. Does 1–
22
101, Case No. 11–2533-DMR; Pacific Century Int‘l, Ltd. v. Does 1-129, Case No. 11-3681-HRL;
23
MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1–149, Case No. 11–2331–LB; Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-166,
24
Case No. 11-03682-LHK (HRL); Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–188, Case No. 11–1566–
25
26
JCS; Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-118, Case No. 11-01567-LB. Now pending before the
27
Court is Plaintiff‘s motion for limited ex parte discovery under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
28
(―FRCP‖) 26(d) and 45 prior to the FRCP 26(f) conference. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to subpoena
1
internet service providers (―ISPs‖) for personal information that will reveal the identities of the 654
2
Doe Defendants named in this suit. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 11.) For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff‘s
3
application is DENIED without prejudice.
4
5
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that 654 Doe Defendants (―Defendants‖) used BitTorrent, an internet peer-to-
6
7
peer (―P2P‖) file sharing network, to illegally reproduce and distribute Plaintiff‘s copyrighted work—
8
―Sperma triologie‖—in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. (Amended Complaint
9
at ¶¶ 3, 12, Dkt. No. 10.) BitTorrent ―allows a user to join a ‗swarm‘ comprised of multiple users
10
hosting the sought after file on their personal computer to download and upload from each other
11
simultaneously.‖ (Dkt. No. 11 at 6.) Plaintiff maintains that ―the Defendants were all part of the same
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
13
swarm.‖ (Dkt. No. 11 at 4.) This ―swarm‖ took place between August 29, 2011 and September 22,
14
2011. (Dkt. No. 11 at Ex. A.) Because Defendants‘ conduct occurred behind the mask of their
15
anonymous internet protocol (―IP‖) addresses, Plaintiff cannot identify Defendants without leave to
16
subpoena Defendants‘ internet service providers (―ISPs‖) for the identity of the individual or entity
17
18
related to each IP address. Plaintiff claims that ―because each ISP assigns a unique IP address to each
19
subscriber and retains subscriber activity records regarding the IP addresses assigned, the information
20
sought in the subpoena will enable Plaintiff to serve Defendants and proceed with this case.‖ (Dkt.
21
No. 11 at 2: 26-28.) Consequently, Plaintiff asks the Court to grant expedited discovery to issue
22
subpoenas to the relevant ISPs to require the ISPs to disclose the name, address, telephone number,
23
24
25
26
27
and email address for each Defendant‘s IP address. (Dkt. No. 3 at 3.)
DISCUSSION
A court may authorize discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the parties‘ convenience
and in the interests of justice. FRCP 26(d)(1). Courts within the Ninth Circuit apply a ―good cause‖
28
2
1
standard to requests for such early discovery. See, e.g., OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, 2011
2
WL 4715200 *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011). Where, as here, a plaintiff moves for expedited discovery
3
to identify anonymous internet users named as doe defendants, courts consider whether:
4
8
(1)the plaintiff can identify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the
Court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in
federal court; (2) the plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken to locate the
elusive defendant; (3) the plaintiff's suit against defendant could withstand a motion to
dismiss; and (4) the plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood of
being able to identify the defendant through discovery such that service of process
would be possible.
9
OpenMind Solutions, Inc., 2011 WL 4715200 at *2 (citing Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy. com, 185
5
6
7
10
F.R.D. 573, 578–80 (N.D.Cal.1999)). Upon review of the Amended Complaint and Plaintiff‘s
11
motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated the requisite good cause because it has not
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
13
shown that this Court would have personal jurisdiction over each doe defendant and that venue is
14
proper in this District.
15
1. Personal Jurisdiction
16
17
Plaintiff hired ―a firm that assists content owners in combating online piracy‖ to ―identify IP
18
addresses and other significant data of each user engaged in the distribution of Plaintiff‘s Motion
19
Picture.‖ (Dkt. No. 11 at 2.) Despite utilizing this service, Plaintiff does not allege any facts to
20
demonstrate that any of the IP addresses referenced belong to users located in this District; indeed,
21
22
Plaintiff makes no allegations with respect to personal jurisdiction at all. Instead, the complaint notes
23
only that ―at least one‖ of the 654 Doe Defendants resides in this District and makes no attempt to
24
identify that doe defendant. Plaintiff also does not allege any due diligence to discover the likely
25
location of the doe defendants. Yet, with minimal effort, the Court was able to utilize one of many
26
free and publicly available services to look up the locations affiliated with IP addresses for which
27
28
Plaintiff seeks discovery. See DigiProtect USA Corp. v. Does, 2011 WL 4444666 (S.D.N.Y Sep. 26,
3
1
2011) (stating that ―[p]ublicly available software provides basic, or at least presumptive, geographic
2
information about IP addresses‖). Selecting at random IP addresses provided in Exhibit A of the
3
Amended Complaint, the Court gathered the following presumptive geographic data:
4
Doe 1, IP address 172.162.24.137, is in Washington, DC;
5
Doe 2, IP address 24.49.39.55, is in Hagerstown, Maryland;
6
7
Doe 3, IP address 69.88.39.250, is also in Hagerstown, Maryland;
8
Doe 4, IP address 24.239.89.221, is in Youngstown, Ohio;
9
Doe 5, IP address 69.42.13.10, is in Concord, California;
10
Doe 6, IP address 32.160.79.9, is in Washington, DC;
11
Doe 52, IP address 24.231.236.189, is in St. Louis, Missouri;
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
13
Doe 100, IP address 68.59.200.167, is in Chattanooga, Tennessee;
14
Doe 200, IP address 71.239.76.143, is in Chicago, Illinois;
15
Doe 300, IP address 31.128.3.24, is in Salkie, Katowice in Poland;
16
Doe 400, IP address 76.178.187.129, is in Couer d‘Alene, Idaho;
17
18
Doe 500, IP address 65.190.56.89, is in Raleigh, North Carolina; and
19
Doe 600, IP address 98.117.214.84, is in Baltimore, Maryland.
20
These results suggest that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the doe defendants;
21
indeed, even without investigating the IP addresses, a cursory look at the carriers identified in the
22
complaint suggests personal jurisdiction problems. For example, Exhibit A includes regional ISPs
23
24
whose very names suggest they are located outside this District, such as BellSouth, which is
25
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and Atlantic Broadband, which is located in Quincy,
26
Massachusetts. (Dkt. No. 11 at Ex. A.) For this reason alone the Court in its discretion denies the
27
motion for expedited discovery. See DigiProtect USA Corp., 2011 WL 4444666 at *2 (stating that a
28
4
1
court may deny a request for early discovery if the plaintiff cannot make a prima facie showing of
2
personal jurisdiction); Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579 (holding that one factor to consider on a
3
motion for expedited discovery is whether the complaint would survive a motion to dismiss).
4
In short, this case involves a German company whose film has allegedly been illegally
5
downloaded from remote towns in Idaho to the far reaches of Poland over the span of nearly a month.
6
7
There is nothing in the complaint that makes a prima facie showing that this court in the Northern
8
District of California has personal jurisdiction of the doe defendants named in this case. The Court is
9
not aware of any caselaw that suggests that this Court has personal jurisdiction over all 654
10
Defendants simply because ―at least one‖ of the defendants (unidentified) allegedly happened to
11
download the file at some point during the time period in question from a computer located in this
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
13
District. As one court in this District noted, the logical extension of such an unprecedented holding
14
―would be that everybody who used . . . BitTorrent would subject themselves to jurisdiction in every
15
state.‖ On The Cheap, LLC v. Does 1-5011, 2011 WL 4018258 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sep 6, 2011).
16
―[T]his is a far cry from the requirement that ‗there be some act by which the defendant purposefully
17
18
19
avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities with the forum State,‘ which is the hallmark of
specific jurisdiction.‖ Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)).
20
2. Venue
21
Plaintiff states that ―venue is proper in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391
22
and 1400, in that a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the dispute arose in this district, the
23
24
25
harm was sustained in this district, and at least one Defendant is found in this district.‖ (Amended
Complaint at ¶ 5.) This conclusory assertion is insufficient to support venue.
26
First, under the copyright venue provision, venue is proper ―in the district in which the
27
defendant or his agent resides or may be found.‖ 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). As explained above, Plaintiff
28
5
1
2
3
4
5
does not and cannot allege that each of the 654 defendants are found in this District. Thus, venue is
not proper under section 1400.
Second, as alluded to in the Amended Complaint, in a federal question case venue is proper in
a judicial district ―in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred.‖ 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). There is nothing in the Amended Complaint, however, that
6
7
suggests Plaintiff—a German company—has a good faith basis for alleging that a substantial part of
8
the events or omissions occurred in this District; to the contrary, the Amended Complaint alleges
9
merely that at least one of the 654 doe defendants resides in this District, and even then does not
10
identify that doe defendant. Thus, once again, Plaintiff‘s motion for expedited discovery has failed to
11
demonstrate that the complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
13
F.R.D. at 579.
14
3. Joinder
15
Aside from the significant jurisdictional obstacles noted above, joinder may also be improper.
16
Under FRCP 20(a), proper joinder requires both that claims against all defendants stem from the same
17
18
transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and also that all defendants share in
19
common any question of law or fact. When defendants are not properly joined, FRCP 21 permits the
20
court ―at any time, on just terms, to add or drop a party‖ if ―no substantial right will be prejudiced by
21
the severance.‖ Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997). Several courts have held
22
that ―the mere allegation that defendants have used the same peer-to-peer network to infringe a
23
24
copyrighted work is insufficient to meet the standards for joinder set forth in Rule 20.‖ Diabolic
25
Video Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-2099, 2011 WL 3100404 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011). As it is
26
unclear how many of the doe defendants this Court would actually have personal jurisdiction and
27
proper venue over, the Court need not address the joinder issue at this time.
28
6
CONCLUSION
1
2
3
4
The problems with personal jurisdiction and venue in this action are not merely technical. It is
fundamentally unfair to require a defendant from outside this District to incur the substantial costs
necessary to file a motion to quash in this District when Plaintiff has the ability to discern in advance
5
which IP addresses are at least likely to be from this District. Accordingly, as Plaintiff has not
6
7
demonstrated good cause, the motion for expedited discovery is DENIED. The denial is without
8
prejudice to Plaintiff amending its complaint and renewing its motion to make at least a prima facie
9
showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over each defendant for whom Plaintiff seeks early
10
discovery and that venue is proper. See OpenMind Solutions, Inc., 2011 WL 4715200 at *2 (granting
11
motion for expedited discovery where, among other things, the plaintiff had alleged sufficient
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
13
14
information to show that each defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the court).
This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 2, 11.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated: October 18, 2011
18
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?