MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-149

Filing 13

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Beeler on 8/15/11. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
MCGIP, LLC,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 11-02331 LB
Plaintiff,

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION
FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY1

v.
13
DOES 1-149,
14
15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

[ECF No. 6]

16

I. INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiff MCGIP, LLC asserts claims for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101 et

18

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

19

discovery from certain Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to identify and name the Doe defendants

20

in this case so that it can complete service of process. Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery,

21

ECF No. 6 at 4. MCGIP consented to this court’s jurisdiction on May 11, 2011. ECF No. 5.

22

As discussed below, the court finds good cause exists for MCGIP to engage in this preliminary

23

discovery but only with respect to Doe 1. Because MCGIP has not demonstrated that permissive

24

joinder is appropriate, the court severs Does 2-149 from this action and dismisses them without

25

prejudice.

26
27
1

28

The court issues this amended order deleting its discussion of personal jurisdiction in
Section III, B below. All other aspects of the order are unchanged.
C 11-02331 LB
AMENDED ORDER RE EARLY DISCOVERY AND JOINDER

1

II. BACKGROUND

2

MCGIP is a Minnesota-based company that is the exclusive licensee for the reproduction and

3

distribution rights for “Watching My Daughter Go Black 2,” a copyrighted file. Complaint, ECF

4

No. 1 at 2-3, ¶ 5, 4, ¶ 6. A copyright application for this work is currently pending. Id. at 6, ¶ 20.

5

According to MCGIP, the Doe defendants, without its permission, reproduced and distributed

6

“Watching My Daughter Go Black 2” to numerous third parties through a peer-to-peer file sharing

7

network thereby violating the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and causing economic

8

and reputation damages. Id. at 7, ¶ 23, 8, ¶ 29; see also id. ¶¶ 32-39 (also claiming a common-plan

9

civil conspiracy to unlawfully reproduce and distribute the work).

10

Because the peer-to-peer file sharing network that the Doe defendants utilized is partially
anonymous, MCGIP does not know the defendants’ names and addresses and cannot complete

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

service of process on them. Motion, ECF No. 6 at 4. It has been able to identify the Internet

13

Protocol (“IP”) address assigned to each of the Doe defendants and the date and time that each

14

defendant allegedly infringed on MCGIP’s copyrighted work. Id.; Complaint, ECF No. 1-2 at 2-5,

15

Exh. A. Additionally, MCGIP identified the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) for each of the IP

16

addresses. Motion, ECF No. 6 at 5. MCGIP therefore asks for early discovery under Federal Rule

17

of Civil Procedure 26(d) and leave to serve Rule 45 third-party subpoenas on each ISP associated

18

with the identified IP addresses to obtain the names and contact information of the Doe defendants

19

to effect service of process on them. Id. at 14-15 and Ex. A.

20

III. DISCUSSION

21

A. Legal Standard for Leave to Take Early Discovery

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

(E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010); Yokohama Tire Crop. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 613-14
C 11-02331 LB
AMENDED ORDER RE EARLY DISCOVERY AND JOINDER

2

1
2

(D. Ariz. 2001) (collecting cases and standards).
When the identities of defendants are not known before a complaint is filed, a plaintiff “should

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12
For the Northern District of California

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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

Cal. 1999).

13

1. Plaintiff Has Shown Good Cause

14

Here, MCGIP has made a sufficient showing under each of the four factors listed above to

15

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

16

First, MCGIP has identified the Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by submitting a chart

17

listing each of the defendants by the IP address assigned to them on the day it alleges the particular

18

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

19

ECF No. 6-1 at 5-8, ¶¶ 12-20.

20

Second, MCGIP has adequately described the steps it took to locate and identify the Doe

21

defendants. Specifically, it investigated and collected data on unauthorized distribution of copies of

22

“Watching My Daughter Go Black 2” on BitTorrent-based peer-to-peer networks. Hansmeier Decl.,

23

ECF No. 6-1 at 5-8, ¶¶ 12-20. The data that MCGIP gathered, separated out by Doe defendant, is

24

listed in Exhibit A to the complaint and includes each defendant’s IP address, the ISP that assigned

25

that IP address, and the date and time the defendant infringed on its copyrighted work. Exh. A, ECF

26

No. 1-2 at 2-5. MCGIP has been unable to further identify the Doe defendants. Hansmeier

27

Declaration, ECF No. 6-1 at 6, ¶ 15.

28

Third, MCGIP pled the essential elements to state a claim for copyright infringement.
C 11-02331 LB
AMENDED ORDER RE EARLY DISCOVERY AND JOINDER

3

1
2

Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 6-9, ¶¶ 18-39.2
Fourth, MCGIP has demonstrated that the proposed subpoena seeks information likely to lead to

3

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

4

Specifically, the proposed subpoena requests that each ISP produce information sufficient to identify

5

the Doe defendant who subscribed to its service, including the defendant’s name, address, telephone

6

number, email address, and media access control address. Motion, ECF No. 6 at 15.

7

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

8

MCGIP leave to conduct early discovery generally. See Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. Furthermore,

9

the court finds that early discovery furthers the interests of justice and poses little, if any,

discovery is therefore consistent with Rule 26(d).

12
For the Northern District of California

inconvenience to the subpoena recipient. Permitting MCGIP to engage in this limited, early

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

B. MCGIP Failed to Show that Permissive Joinder is Appropriate

13

Under Rule 20(a), permissive joinder of defendants is appropriate where “any right to relief is

14

asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the

15

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and [ ] any question of law or

16

fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Where misjoinder

17

occurs, the court may, on just terms, add or drop a party so long as “no substantial right will be

18

prejudiced by the severance.” See Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Fed. R.

19

Civ. P. 21. Courts should construe Rule 20 liberally “in order to promote trial convenience and to

20

expedite the final determination of disputes.” See League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg’l

21

Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977). Courts may consider various factors to

22

determine whether joinder “comport[s] with the fundamental principles of fairness,” including the

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

MCGIP arguably did not plead the elements for a civil conspiracy claim. See Millennium
TGA, Inc. v. Doe, No. C 11–2258 SC, 2011 WL 1812786, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2011)
(dismissing an identical claim asserted by MCGIP’s counsel in a different case). Also, other than
allegations that the Doe defendants engaged in similar conduct, MCGIP has not pled sufficient facts
to show that they agreed to commit a wrongful act (i.e. they were part of the same swarm).
Nonetheless, because MCGIP sufficiently pled the essential elements of a copyright infringement
claim, it satisfied the third requirement for early discovery.
C 11-02331 LB
AMENDED ORDER RE EARLY DISCOVERY AND JOINDER

4

1

possibility of prejudice to the parties and the motives of the party seeking joinder. See Desert

2

Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980).

3

Other courts in this district and elsewhere have found misjoinder in similar copyright

4

infringement cases. See, e.g., Diabolic Video Prods. v. Does 1-2099, No. C 10-5865 PSG, 2011

5

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58351, at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011); Pac. Century Int’l, Ltd. v. Does 1-101,

6

No. C 11-02533 DMR, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73837, at *7-*14 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 8, 2011) (collecting

7

cases); IO Group, Inc. v. Does 1-435, No. C 10-4382 SI, 2011 WL 445043, at *3-*6 (N.D. Cal. Feb.

8

3, 2011) (collecting cases). Those courts have found allegations that BitTorrent users downloaded

9

the same copyrighted files insufficient to support joinder. See, e.g., Pac. Century Int’l, 2011 U.S.

in the litigation. See, e.g., Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1,062, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332, 342-

12
For the Northern District of California

Dist. LEXIS 73837 at *12-*13. In contrast, other courts have found joinder appropriate at this stage

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

43 (D.D.C. 2011); Donkeyball Movie, LLC v. Does 1-171, Civil Action No. 10–1520 (BAH), 2011

13

WL 1807452, at *4-*5 (D.D.C. May 12, 2011); West Coast Prod., Inc. v. Does 1-5829, Civil Action

14

No. 11–57 (CKK), 2011 WL 2292239, at *5-*6 (D.D.C. Jun. 10, 2011).

15

The court concludes here that MCGIP fails to demonstrate that joinder is appropriate. It argues

16

that the Doe defendants are properly joined “even if they were not engaged in a contemporaneous

17

swarm because they have contributed to the chain of data distribution due to their prior involvement

18

in like swarms.” Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 3, ¶ 5; see also Hansmeier Declaration, ECF No. 6-1 at 4-

19

5, ¶ 9 (acknowledging that different uploaded versions of the protected work spawn discrete swarms

20

that cluster around the original seed file). Moreover, the “nature of the BitTorrent distribution

21

protocol necessitates a concerted action by many people in order to disseminate files.” Id. These

22

arguments fail. See, e.g., Pac. Century Int’l, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73837 at *12-*13. MCGIP

23

relies on the fact that the Doe defendants engaged in the same behavior concerning the same

24

protected work to justify joinder. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 3, ¶ 5. Without more, permissive joinder

25

is inappropriate, particularly given that 149 Doe defendants downloaded the protected work at

26

various dates and times ranging from March 28 to May 6, 2011. Complaint, ECF No. 1-2 at 2-5, Ex.

27

A; See Diabolic Video Prods., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58351 at *11 n.16 (collecting cases).

28

Joinder also fails to promote trial convenience and expedition of the ultimate determination of
C 11-02331 LB
AMENDED ORDER RE EARLY DISCOVERY AND JOINDER

5

1

the substantive issues in this case. Though the 149 Doe defendants may have engaged in similar

2

behavior, they are likely to present different defenses. See BMG Music v. Does 1-203, No. Civ.A.

3

04-650, 2004 WL 953888, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2004). As one court noted, “Comcast subscriber

4

John Doe 1 could be an innocent parent whose internet access was abused by her minor child, while

5

John Doe 2 might share a computer with a roommate who infringed Plaintiffs’ works. John Does 3

6

through 203 could be thieves, just as Plaintiffs believe.” Id.

7
8
9

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court SEVERS Does 2-149 from this action and DISMISSES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE MCGIP’s claims against them. Should MCGIP refile separate
complaints against any of these defendants within 20 days of this order, those suits will be deemed a

11

continuation of the original action for purposes of the statute of limitations.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

13
14

The court GRANTS MCGIP’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery with respect to Doe 1
as follows.
1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on

15

the Internet Service Provider (ISP) listed in Exhibit A to the complaint to obtain information to

16

identify Doe 1, including his or her name, address, telephone number, email address, and media

17

access control address. The subpoena shall have a copy of this order attached.

18

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

19

them to serve Doe 1 with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this order. The ISP may serve Doe 1

20

using any reasonable means, including written notice sent to his or her last known address,

21

transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service.

22

3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Doe 1 shall have 30 days from the date of service upon

23

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

24

modify the subpoena). If that 30-day period lapses without Doe 1 contesting the subpoena, the ISP

25

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

26
27
28

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 the ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant to this order
C 11-02331 LB
AMENDED ORDER RE EARLY DISCOVERY AND JOINDER

6

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

summary and any costs claimed by the ISP.

5
6
7

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

8

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

9

set forth in its complaint.
This terminates ECF No. 6.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Dated: August 15, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 11-02331 LB
AMENDED ORDER RE EARLY DISCOVERY AND JOINDER

7