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