Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-84
Filing
8
Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 5 plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery.(hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2011)
1
2
*E-FILED 08-05-2011*
3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
7
HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
No. C11-03648 HRL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
TAKE LIMITED EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY
v.
14
DOES 1-84,
15
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
[Re: Docket No. 5]
16
17
BACKGROUND
18
Plaintiff Hard Drive Productions, Inc. ("Hard Drive"), a company incorporated in
19
Arizona, filed this complaint on July 26, 2011. Hard Drive alleges that at least eighty-four
20
unknown Defendants knowingly and willfully infringed its copyright by downloading and
21
sharing its copyrighted work ("Work"). Specifically, Hard Drive alleges that Doe Defendants
22
engaged in unlawful concerted conduct for the purpose of infringing its Work using an online
23
peer-to-peer ("P2P") file-sharing tool called BitTorrent, in violation of the Copyright Act, 17
24
U.S.C. § 101 et seq. See Compl. at 4-6. The BitTorrent protocol, as explained by Judge
25
Grewal:
26
27
28
is a decentralized method of distributing data. Since its release approximately 10
years ago, BitTorrent has allowed users to share files anonymously with other users.
Instead of relying on a central server to distribute data directly to individual users,
the BitTorrent protocol allows individual users to distribute data amo[ng]
themselves by exchanging pieces of the file with each other to eventually obtain a
whole copy of the file. When using the BitTorrent protocol, every user
simultaneously receives information from and transfers information to one another.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
In the BitTorrent vernacular, individual downloaders/distributors of a particular file
are called "peers." The group of peers involved in downloading/distributing a
particular file is called a "swarm." A server which stores a list of peers in a swarm
is called a "tracker." A computer program that implements the BitTorrent protocol
is called a BitTorrent "client."
The BitTorrent protocol operates as follows. First, a user locates a small "torrent"
file. This file contains information about the files to be shared and about the tracker,
the computer that coordinates the file distribution. Second, the user loads the torrent
file into a BitTorrent client, which automatically attempts to connect to the tracker
listed in the torrent file. Third, the tracker responds with a list of peers and the
BitTorrent client connects to those peers to begin downloading data from and
distributing data to the other peers in the swarm. When the download is complete,
the BitTorrent client continues distributing data to the peers in the swarm until the
user manually disconnects [from] the swarm or the BitTorrent client otherwise does
the same.
9
Diabolic Video Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-2099, No. 10-CV-5865 (PSG), 2011 U.S. Dist.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
LEXIS 58351, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011). As Hard Drive notes, the BitTorrent protocol
12
allows users to "engage in deep and sustained collaboration" with each other by
13
“simultaneously downloading and distributing copyrighted material.” Plaintiff’s Ex Parte
14
Application (“Application”) at 13:14-15, 17:12-13. As each new peer joins a swarm and begins
15
to download and share the designated file, the swarm grows larger and gains greater efficiency.
16
See Hansmeier Decl. at ¶ 7. BitTorrent also allows users to exchange files without having to
17
disclose their identities, using only an Internet Protocol ("IP") address assigned to them by their
18
respective Internet Service Providers ("ISP"). See Compl. at ¶ 8.
19
Hard Drive hired Media Copyright Group ("MCG"), a firm specializing in online piracy
20
detection, to identify the IP addresses of individuals engaged in file-sharing of its copyrighted
21
Work. See Hansmeier Decl. at ¶¶ 12-20. MCG used proprietary forensic software to locate the
22
swarms downloading and distributing Hard Drive's Work and to identify the IP address of each
23
user in the swarm, noting the date and time of the observed activity during a three-month
24
period. See id.; Compl. Ex. A.
25
Hard Drive joined multiple Doe Defendants in this suit, claiming that P2P sharing of its
26
copyrighted Work comprised a transaction or series of transactions and asserting common
27
questions of law and fact among each Defendant. See Compl. at 4-5. Using the list of IP
28
addresses, Hard Drive seeks leave to subpoena the ISPs to identify each Doe Defendant's name,
2
1
address, telephone number, email address, and Media Access Control information. Application
2
at 25:3-10. Hard Drive claims that it cannot identify Doe Defendants for purposes of service of
3
process unless its Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery
4
("Application") is granted.
5
6
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), a court may authorize early discovery
7
before the Rule 26(f) conference for the parties' convenience and in the interest of justice. FED.
8
R. CIV. P. 26(f)(1), (2). Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally use a “good cause” standard
9
to determine whether to permit such discovery. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd., No. 11–CV–01846 LHK, 2011 WL 1938154, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2011);
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good
12
cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the
13
administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208
14
F.R.D. at 276.
15
While discovery normally only takes place after a defendant has been served, where the
16
alleged tortious activity occurs entirely on-line, “[s]ervice of process can pose a special
17
dilemma for plaintiffs ... because the defendant may have used a fictitious name and address in
18
the commission of the tortious acts.” Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-62, No. 11-
19
CV575 MMA (NLS), 2011 WL 1869923, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2011) (quoting Columbia
20
Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999)). In determining whether
21
there is good cause to allow expedited discovery to identify anonymous Internet users named as
22
Doe defendants, courts consider whether: (1) the plaintiff can identify the missing party with
23
sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity
24
who could be sued in federal court; (2) the plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken to
25
locate the elusive defendant; (3) the plaintiff's suit against defendant could withstand a motion
26
to dismiss, and; (4) the plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood of being
27
able to identify the defendant through discovery such that service of process would be possible.
28
Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. at 578-80.
3
1
DISCUSSION
2
Hard Drive has met its burden as set forth above. First, Hard Drive’s agent MCG used
3
its forensic software to identify the unique IP addresses of individuals engaged in P2P sharing
4
of the Work, noting the date and time of this activity. See Hansmeier Decl. at ¶¶ 15. The
5
forensic analysis included verification of each IP address to ensure that it corresponded to users
6
who actually reproduced and distributed the Work. See id. at ¶¶ 18-20. Plaintiff also used
7
"geolocation" technology to trace these IP addresses to a point of origin within the state of
8
California. Compl. at ¶ 3. Based on its findings, Hard Drive contends, and this Court believes,
9
that “all defendants reside in or committed copyright infringement in the state of California.”
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Id.
Second, Hard Drive has taken reasonable steps to identify these Doe Defendants but has
12
been unable to do so. MCG’s investigation revealed only the IP addresses of Doe Defendants
13
and their affiliated ISPs, noting the date and time of the observed activity. See Hansmeier Decl.
14
at ¶¶ 15-18. Hard Drive asserts that it has exhausted all other means of identifying Doe
15
Defendants and that ultimate identification depends on a court order authorizing a subpoena of
16
the ISPs. See id. at ¶ 21.
17
Third, this court is satisfied that Hard Drive’s complaint would likely withstand a
18
motion to dismiss. Hard Drive has sufficiently pled a prima facie case of copyright
19
infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and Doe Defendants, having
20
engaged in the same transaction or series of transactions, share common questions of law and
21
fact and are thus properly joined.
22
Fourth, Hard Drive has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that its requested
23
discovery will lead to the identification of Doe Defendants. Hard Drive asserts that ISPs assign
24
a unique IP address to individual users and that an ISP retains records pertaining to those IP
25
addresses for a limited period of time. Hansmeier Decl. at ¶¶ 16-17.
26
CONCLUSION
27
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Hard Drive’s motion for expedited
28
discovery. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
4
1
1.
Hard Drive may immediately serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the ISPs listed in
2
Exhibit A to the Complaint to obtain information that will identify each Doe
3
Defendant, including name, address, telephone number, email address, and
4
media access control information. Each subpoena shall have a copy of this
5
Order attached.
6
2.
Each ISP will have 30 days from the date of service upon them to serve the
7
subscribers of the IP addresses with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this
8
order. The ISPs may serve the subscribers using any reasonable means,
9
including written notice sent to the subscriber's last known address, transmitted
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
either by first-class mail or via overnight service.
3.
Subscribers shall have 30 days from the date of service upon them to file any
12
motions in this court contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or
13
modify the subpoena). If that 30–day period lapses without a subscriber
14
contesting the subpoena, the ISPs shall have 10 days to produce the information
15
responsive to the subpoena to Hard Drive.
16
4.
17
18
The subpoenaed entity shall preserve any subpoenaed information pending the
resolution of any timely-filed motion to quash.
5.
Any ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant to this Order shall confer with Hard
19
Drive and shall not assess any charge in advance of providing the information
20
requested in the subpoena. Any ISP that receives a subpoena and elects to
21
charge for the costs of production shall provide Hard Drive with a billing
22
summary and cost reports that serve as a basis for such billing summary and any
23
costs claimed by such ISP.
24
6.
25
26
27
Hard Drive shall serve a copy of this order along with any subpoenas issued
pursuant to this order to the necessary entities.
7.
Any information disclosed to Hard Drive in response to a Rule 45 subpoena may
be used by Hard Drive solely for the purpose of protecting its rights as set forth
28
5
1
in its complaint.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED
3
DATED:
4
August 5, 2011
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
1
5:11-cv-03648-HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:
2
Brett Langdon Gibbs
blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?