Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1 through 7

Filing 5

ORDER granting 4 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 6/8/12. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

CASE NO. 12cv1052-LAB (MDD)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR EARLY DISCOVERY

Plaintiff,

12
vs.
13
14
15

[DOC. NO. 4]

JOHN DOES 1-7,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas
Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. (Doc. No. 4) Having reviewed the motion and supporting
documents, and having considered the requirements of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Early Discovery is GRANTED.
Background
The instant motion was filed on April 30, 2012, the same day as the complaint.

23

The complaint alleges that the seven John Doe defendants engaged in alleging direct

24

and contributory copyright infringement of up to 105 protected works which were

25

contained within a single website. According to the complaint, the entire website was

26

downloaded and its contents distributed and shared to and through these defendants

27

using BitTorrent technology. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff claims to have identified the Internet

28

Protocol (“IP”) addresses of the John Doe defendants allegedly involved in the infringing

-1-

12cv1052 LAB (MDD)

1
2
3

activity and, using publicly available search tools, has traced the IP addresses to
physical addresses within this District and has identified the Internet Service Providers
(“ISPs”) which leased the involved IP addresses to subscribers. (Doc. No. 4-3).

4

Legal Standard

5
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) states:
6
“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the
7
parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a

8

proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule

9

26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation,

10

or by court order.”

11
12
13
14

In the instant case, Plaintiff may only use expedited discovery by court order. In this
Circuit, courts must find “good cause” to determine whether to permit discovery prior to
the Rule 26(f) conference. Good cause exists where the need for expedited discovery, in

15

consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding

16

party. See, e.g., Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-43, 2007 WL 4538697 *1 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

17

In infringement cases involving the Internet, good cause is often found by the

18

courts where the party seeking expedited discovery of a Doe defendant’s identity

19

establishes the following:

20

1.

A prima facie case of infringement;

21

2.

That there is no other way to identify the Doe defendant; and,

22

3.

That there is a risk that the ISP will destroy its logs prior to the Rule 26(f)
conference.

23
24

See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 4104214 *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008). In UMG the

25

court said:

26

“[I]n considering ‘the administration of justice,’ early

27

discovery avoids ongoing continuous harm to the infringed

28

party and there is no other way to advance the litigation. As
-2-

12cv1052 LAB (MDD)

1

for the defendant, there is no prejudice where the discovery

2

request is narrowly tailored to only seek their identity.”

3
4

(citations omitted).
This Court has reviewed the allegations of the complaint and finds that the

5
Plaintiff has alleged a prima facie case of direct and contributory copyright infringement
6
against the Doe defendants. Plaintiff also has alleged that it cannot identify these
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

defendants without early discovery from the ISPs and that early discovery is necessary
because the ISPs are not required to maintain their logs for any set period of time and
may destroy them in the ordinary course of business.
Finally, this Court must consider the requirements of the The Cable Privacy Act,
47 U.S.C. §551. The Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing personally
identifiable information regarding subscribers without the prior written or electronic
consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). A cable operator, however, may disclose

15

such information if the disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable

16

operator provides the subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). The

17

ISPs that Plaintiff intends to subpoena in this case are cable operators within the

18

meaning of the Act.

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

Plaintiff may obtain and serve subpoenas under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 to Cox

21

Communications and Roadrunner in order solely to obtain the names and addresses of

22

subscribers using the seven IP addresses identified in Exhibit B attached to Plaintiff’s

23

motion at the precise dates and times identified therein. (Doc. No. 4-3). The identified

24

ISPs shall have fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena upon it to

25

notify its subscriber that his/her identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The

26

subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have thirty (30) calendar days from

27

the date of such notice to challenge the disclosure to the Plaintiff by filing an appropriate

28

pleading with this court contesting the subpoena. The ISP, if it intends to move to quash
-3-

12cv1052 LAB (MDD)

1
2
3
4

the subpoena, must do so prior to the return date of the subpoena. The return date of the
subpoena must allow for at least forty-five (45) days from service to production. If a
motion to quash or other customer challenge is brought, the ISP must preserve the
information sought by Plaintiff pending resolution of the motion or challenge.

5
2.

Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed pursuant to these

6
subpoenas exclusively in pursuing this litigation.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

3.

Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with any subpoena obtained and

served pursuant to this Order to the named ISPs. The ISPs, in turn, must provide a copy
of this Order along with the required notice to any subscriber whose identity is sought
pursuant to this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
DATED: June 8, 2012

14
15
16

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

12cv1052 LAB (MDD)