First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-37

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Beeler granting 6 Ex Parte Application (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
FIRST TIME VIDEOS, LLC,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 11-01675 LB

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
EX PARTE MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

v.
13
DOES 1-37,
14
15
16
17

[ECF No. 6]
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff First Time Videos, LLC asserts claims for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C.

18

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

19

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

20

Expedited Discovery, ECF No. 6. In its motion, First Time Videos requests that the court allow it to

21

serve subpoenas on certain Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to obtain information identifying the

22

Doe defendants so that it can complete service of process on them. Id. at 12.

23

As discussed below, First Time Videos has demonstrated that: (1) the Doe defendants are real

24

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 First Time Videos to engage in
C 11-01675 LB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

1
2

this preliminary discovery. Accordingly, the court GRANTS First Time Videos’ motion.
II. BACKGROUND

within a variety of adult entertainment niches. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 4, ¶ 6. First Time Videos’

5

most prominent site is “ftvgirls.com” which features over 2,500 videos and over 100,000 high

6

resolution photographs. Id. As part of this venture, First Time Videos produced a copyrighted work

7

titled “FTV Girls - Ella.” Id. at ¶ 7. According to First Time Videos, the Doe defendants, without

8

its permission, reproduced and distributed “FTV Girls - Ella” to numerous third parties through a

9

peer-to-peer file sharing network. Id. at 7, ¶ 23. It alleges that reproduction and distribution of this

10

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

11

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

12
For the Northern District of California

First Time Videos is a Nevada based limited liability company that produced adult content

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

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

13

reputation damage to First Time Videos. Id. at ¶¶ 32-39.

14

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

15

anonymous, First Time Videos does not know the defendants’ names and addresses, and, as a result,

16

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

17

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

18

time that each defendant allegedly infringed on its copyrighted work. Id.; Complaint, ECF No. 1-2

19

at 2, Exh. A. Additionally, First Time Videos has identified the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”)

20

for each of the IP addresses. Motion, ECF No. 6 at 5. First Time Videos therefore requests that,

21

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), the court grant it leave to serve a Rule 45 third-

22

party subpoena on each ISP listed in Exhibit A of the Complaint that assigned an IP addresses to the

23

Doe defendants so that it may obtain the names and contact information of the Doe defendants to

24

effect service of process on them. Id. at 14-16.

25

III. DISCUSSION

26

A. Legal Standard for Leave to Take Early Discovery

27

A court may authorize early discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the parties’ and

28

witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts within the
C 11-01675 LB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

When the identities of defendants are not known before a complaint is filed, a plaintiff “should

8

be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that

9

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

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

12
For the Northern District of California

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

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Cal. 1999).

18

B. Plaintiff Has Shown Good Cause

19

Here, First Time Videos has made a sufficient showing under each of the four factors listed

20

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

21

defendants.

22

First, First Time Videos has identified the Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by

23

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

24

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

25

Hansmeier Decl., ECF No. 6-1 at 5-8, ¶¶ 12-20.

26

Second, First Time Videos has adequately described the steps it took to locate and identify the

27

Doe defendants. Specifically, it investigated and collected data on unaApril 11, 2011uthorized

28

distribution of copies of “FTV Girls - Ella” on BitTorrent-based peer-to-peer networks. Hansmeier
C 11-01675 LB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

3

1

Decl., ECF No. 6-1 at 5-8, ¶¶ 12-20. The data that First Time Videos gathered, separated out by

2

Doe defendant, is listed in Exhibit A to the complaint and includes each defendant’s IP address, the

3

ISP that assigned that IP address, and the date and time the defendant infringed on its copyrighted

4

work. Exh. A, ECF No. 1-2. at 2. However, First Time Videos has been unable to further identify

5

the Doe defendants.

6

Third, First Time Videos has pled the essential elements to state a claim for copyright

7

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

8

7-9, ¶¶ 25-39.

9

Fourth, First Time Videos has demonstrated that the proposed subpoena seeks information likely

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

12
For the Northern District of California

to lead to identifying information that will allow it to effect service of process on the Doe

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

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

13

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

14

No. 6 at 15.

15

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

16

First Time Videos leave to conduct early discovery to identify the Doe defendants. See Semitool,

17

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

18

poses little, if any, inconvenience to the subpoena recipients. Permitting First Time Videos to

19

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

20

In First Time Videos’ proposed order, it requests that the court permit it to serve the subpoena on

21

“any other entity later identified.” The court denies this request. If it identifies new entities, First

22

Time Videos may submit a declaration detailing the four requirements discussed above along with a

23

proposed order mimicking the language in the following section.

24
25
26
27
28

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS First Time Videos’ Ex Parte Motion for
Expedited Discovery as follows.
1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may immediately serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint to obtain information to
C 11-01675 LB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

4

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

to the subscriber’s last known address, transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service.

7

3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that subscribers shall have 30 days from the date of service

8

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

9

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

10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

summary and any costs claimed by such ISP.

18
19
20

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

21

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

22

set forth in its complaint.

23

This disposes of ECF No. 6.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

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

27
28
C 11-01675 LB
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

5