Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-118
Filing
15
ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL PERMISSION FOR DOE DEFENDANTS TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY. Signed by Judge Beeler on 8/26/11. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
Oakland Division
HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
Plaintiff,
v.
13
DOES 1-118,
No. C 11-01567 LB
ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL
PERMISSION FOR DOE
DEFENDANTS TO PROCEED
ANONYMOUSLY
14
15
16
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
The recent surge in copyright cases involving numerous Doe defendants has presented a handful
17
of difficult legal questions with regard to joinder, personal jurisdiction, venue, and the procedures
18
necessary to sort them out in a fair manner. See, e.g., IO Group v. J.W., No. C-10-05821 DMR,
19
2011 WL 237673, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2011) (noting a split of authority as to whether the court
20
with underlying jurisdiction over the case may determine a motion to quash or whether a motion to
21
quash must be directed to the court that issued the subpoena). In light of these issues, which might
22
be particularly challenging for those proceeding without counsel, “protections for the Doe
23
Defendants are warranted to ensure that no defendant with potentially valid objections to the
24
jurisdiction and venue of this court is forced to settle to avoid litigation in a distant court.” Liberty
25
Media Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-62, Civil No. 11cv 575 MMA (NLS), 2011 WL 1869923, at *6
26
(S.D. Cal. May 12, 2011).
27
28
Accordingly, the court GRANTS a protective order to the limited extent that any information
regarding the Doe Defendants released to Plaintiff by the internet service providers shall be treated
C 11-01567 LB
ORDER
WL 5071605, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Specifically, Plaintiff shall not publicly disclose that
3
information until the Doe Defendant has the opportunity to file a motion with this court to be
4
allowed to proceed in this litigation anonymously and that motion is ruled on by the court. Id. If the
5
Doe Defendant fails to file a motion for leave to proceed anonymously within 30 days after his or
6
her information is disclosed to Plaintiff’s counsel, this limited protective order will expire. Id.
7
Given the potential embarrassment associated with being publicly accused of having illegally
8
downloaded adult entertainment, if the Doe Defendant includes identifying information within his or
9
her request to proceed anonymously, the court finds good cause to order the papers filed under seal
10
until the court has the opportunity to rule on the request. See id. at 3 (permitting party to file under
11
seal a declaration with identifying information); see also McCoy v. Southwest Airlines Co., Inc., 211
12
For the Northern District of California
as confidential for a limited duration. See IO Group, Inc. v. Does 1-19, No. C 10-03851 SI, 2010
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
F.R.D. 381, 385 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (“[U]nder Rule 26(c), the Court may sua sponte grant a protective
13
order for good cause shown.”).
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated: August 26, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 11-01567 LB
ORDER
2
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?