Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-118

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Beeler granting 6 Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2011) Modified on 4/15/2011 (cjl, COURT STAFF).

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,

No. C 11-01567 LB
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
EX PARTE MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

v.
13
DOES 1-118,
14
15

[ECF No. 6]
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16

I. INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiff Hard Drive Productions, Inc. asserts claims for copyright infringement pursuant to 17

18

U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and for civil conspiracy. Complaint, ECF No. 1. It seeks permission to take

19

limited, expedited discovery to identify and name the Doe defendants in this case. Ex Parte Motion

20

for Expedited Discovery, ECF No. 6. In its motion, Hard Drive Productions requests that the court

21

allow it to serve subpoenas on certain Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to obtain information

22

identifying the Doe defendants so that Plaintiff can complete service of process on them. Id. at 12.

23

As discussed below, Hard Drive Productions has demonstrated that: (1) the Doe defendants are

24

real people who may be sued in federal court; (2) it has unsuccessfully attempted to identify the Doe

25

defendants prior to filing this motion; (3) its infringement and civil conspiracy claims against the

26

Doe defendants could survive a motion to dismiss; and (4) there is a reasonable likelihood that

27

service of the proposed subpoenas on the ISPs will lead to information identifying the Doe

28

defendants. The court therefore finds that good cause exists to allow Hard Drive Productions to
C 11-01567 LB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

1

engage in this preliminary discovery. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Hard Drive Production’s

2

motion.

3

II. BACKGROUND

entertainment. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 4, ¶ 6. As part of its operations, Hard Drive Productions

6

operates a website called “Amateur Allure” that contains a work titled “Amateur Allure – Samantha

7

Saint.” Id. at ¶ 6-7. A copyright application for this work is currently pending. Id. at 7, ¶ 20.

8

According to Hard Drive Productions, the Doe defendants, without its permission, reproduced and

9

distributed “Amateur Allure – Samantha Saint” to numerous third parties through a peer-to-peer file

10

sharing network. Id. at 7, ¶ 23. Hard Drive Productions alleges that reproduction and distribution of

11

this work violated the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., thereby causing it economic

12
For the Northern District of California

Hard Drive Productions is an Arizona-based corporation that produces and distributes adult

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

and reputation damages. Id. at 8, ¶ 29. It also claims that the Doe defendants participated in a

13

common-plan civil conspiracy to unlawfully reproduce and distribute the work, which caused

14

economic and reputation damage to Hard Drive Productions. Id. at 32-39.

15

Because the peer-to-peer file sharing network that the Doe defendants utilized is partially

16

anonymous, Hard Drive Productions does not know the defendants’ names and addresses, and, as a

17

result, is unable to complete service of process on them. Motion, ECF No. 6 at 4. However, it has

18

been able to identify the Internet Protocol (“IP”) assigned to each of the Doe defendants and the date

19

and time that each defendant allegedly infringed on Hard Drive Production’s copyrighted work. Id.;

20

Complaint, ECF No. 1-1 at 2-4, Exh. A. Additionally, Hard Drive Productions has identified the

21

Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) for each of the IP addresses. Motion, ECF No. 6 at 5. Hard Drive

22

Productions therefore requests that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), the court

23

grant it leave to serve a Rule 45 third-party subpoena on each ISP listed in Exhibit A of the

24

Complaint that assigned an IP addresses to the Doe defendants so that it may obtain the names and

25

contact information of the Doe defendants to effect service of process on them. Id. at 14-15.

26

III. DISCUSSION

27

A. Legal Standard for Leave to Take Early Discovery

28

A court may authorize early discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the parties’ and
C 11-01567 LB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

2

1

witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts within the

2

Ninth Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown “good cause” for the early discovery.

3

See, e.g., IO Group, Inc. v. Does 1-65, No. C 10-4377 SC, 2010 WL 4055667, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct.

4

15, 2010); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-277 (N.D. Cal.

5

2002); Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v. Dhindsa, No. C 10-0035, 2010 WL 2353520, at * 2

6

(E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010); Yokohama Tire Crop. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 613-14

7

(D. Ariz. 2001) (collecting cases and standards).

8
9

When the identities of defendants are not known before a complaint is filed, a plaintiff “should
be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that

grounds.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). In evaluating whether a plaintiff

12
For the Northern District of California

discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

establishes good cause to learn the identity of Doe defendants through early discovery, courts

13

examine whether the plaintiff (1) identifies the Doe defendant with sufficient specificity that the

14

court can determine that the defendant is a real person who can be sued in federal court, (2) recounts

15

the steps taken to locate and identify the defendant, (3) demonstrates that the action can withstand a

16

motion to dismiss, and (4) proves that the discovery is likely to lead to identifying information that

17

will permit service of process. Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D.

18

Cal. 1999).

19

B. Plaintiff Has Shown Good Cause

20

Here, Hard Drive Productions has made a sufficient showing under each of the four factors listed

21

above to establish good cause to permit it to engage in early discovery to identify the Doe

22

defendants.

23

First, Hard Drive Productions has identified the Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by

24

submitting a chart listing each of the defendants by the IP address assigned to them on the day it

25

alleges the particular defendant engaged in the infringing conduct. See Exh. A, ECF No. 1-1 at 2-5;

26

Hansmeier Decl., ECF No. 6-1 at 6-8, ¶¶ 12-20.

27
28

Second, Hard Drive Productions has adequately described the steps it took to locate and identify
the Doe defendants. Specifically, it investigated and collected data on unauthorized distribution of
C 11-01567 LB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

3

1

copies of “Amateur Allure – Samantha Saint” on BitTorrent-based peer-to-peer networks.

2

Hansmeier Decl., ECF No. 6-1 at 5-8, ¶¶ 12-20. The data that Hard Drive Productions gathered,

3

separated out by Doe defendant, is listed in Exhibit A to the complaint and includes each

4

defendant’s IP address, the ISP that assigned that IP address, and the date and time the defendant

5

infringed on its copyrighted work. Exh. A, ECF No. 1-1. at 2-4. However, Hard Drive Productions

6

has been unable to further identify the Doe defendants.

7

Third, Hard Drive Productions has pled the essential elements to state a claim for copyright

8

infringement and a claim for civil conspiracy against the Doe defendants. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at

9

7-9, ¶¶ 18-39.

10

Fourth, Hard Drive Productions has demonstrated that the proposed subpoena seeks information
likely to lead to identifying information that will allow it to effect service of process on the Doe

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

defendants. Specifically, the proposed subpoena requests that each ISP produce information

13

sufficient to identify the Doe defendant who subscribed to its service, including the defendant’s

14

name, address, telephone number, email address, and media access control address. Motion, ECF

15

No. 6 at 14.

16

Taken together, the court finds that the foregoing factors demonstrate good cause exists to grant

17

Hard Drive Productions leave to conduct early discovery to identify the Doe defendants. See

18

Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. Further, the court finds that early discovery furthers the interests of

19

justice and poses little, if any, inconvenience to the subpoena recipients. Permitting Hard Drive

20

Productions to engage in this limited, early discovery is therefore consistent with Rule 26(d).

21

In Hard Drive Productions’s proposed order, it requests that the court permit it to serve the

22

subpoena on “any other entity later identified.” The court denies this request. If it identifies new

23

entities, Hard Drive Productions may submit a declaration detailing the four requirements discussed

24

above along with a proposed order mimicking the language in the following section.
IV. CONCLUSION

25
26
27
28

For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Hard Drive Production’s Ex Parte Motion for
Expedited Discovery as follows.
1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may immediately serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the
C 11-01567 LB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

4

1

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint to obtain information to

2

identify each Doe Defendant, including the name, address, telephone numbers, email addresses, and

3

media access control addresses. Each subpoena shall have a copy of this Order attached.

4

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ISPs will have 30 days from the date of service upon

5

them to serve the subscribers of the IP addresses with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this

6

order. The ISPs may serve the subscribers using any reasonable means, including written notice sent

7

to the subscriber’s last known address, transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service.
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that subscribers shall have 30 days from the date of service

9

upon them to file any motions in this court contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or

10

modify the subpoena). If that 30-day period lapses without a subscriber contesting the subpoena, the

11

ISPs shall have 10 days to produce the information responsive to the subpoena to Plaintiff.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

13
14

4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the subpoenaed entity shall preserve any subpoenaed
information pending the resolution of any timely-filed motion to quash.
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant to this Order

15

shall confer with Plaintiff and shall not assess any charge in advance of providing the information

16

requested in the subpoena. Any ISP that receives a subpoena and elects to charge for the costs of

17

production shall provide a billing summary and cost reports that serve as a basis for such billing

18

summary and any costs claimed by such ISP.

19
20
21

6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order along with any
subpoenas issued pursuant to this order to the necessary entities.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any information disclosed to Plaintiff in response to a

22

Rule 45 subpoena may be used by Plaintiff solely for the purpose of protecting Plaintiff's rights as

23

set forth in its complaint.

24

This terminates ECF No. 6.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: April 14, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

28
C 11-01567 LB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

5