Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. DOE-72.197.35.160

Filing 14

ORDER Granting in Part 12 Plaintiff's Second Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Issue Two FRCP 45 Subpoenas and Motion for Additional Time to Serve Complaint. The Court denies Plaintiff's request to serve a Rule 45 deposition subpoena on Mike R. Ahmari. Plaintiff may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the Sterling Alvarado Apartments for rental records for 6625 Alvarado Road, Unit 4406, San Diego, California 92120. The subpoena shall only request records related to the time period associated with the alleged infringing activity. Plaintiff is granted and additional sixty (60) days to serve the summons and complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 12/9/15. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Case No.: 15cv1614-BAS (DHB)

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC, a Texas
limited liability company,
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND EX PARTE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE
TWO FRCP 45 SUBPOENAS AND
MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME
TO SERVE COMPLAINT

13
14
15
16

v.
DOE-72.197.35.160,
Defendant.

17

[ECF No. 12]

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Doe, a subscriber assigned IP
address 72.197.35.160 (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges a single cause of
action for direct copyright infringement of the motion picture Dallas Buyers Club. On
August 20, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to subpoena records from Cox
Communications in order to learn the identity of the account holder assigned to the IP
address. (ECF No. 6.) The Court permitted the early discovery so that Plaintiff would be
able to identify and serve Defendant. Plaintiff now requests leave to issue two additional
Rule 45 subpoenas and for additional time to serve the complaint. (ECF No. 12.) Good
cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART.

28
1
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)

1

I. DISCUSSION

2

The purpose of early discovery in an action such as this is “to permit the plaintiff to

3

learn the identifying facts necessary to permit service on the defendant.” Columbia Ins.

4

Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti,

5

629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Plaintiff has set forth the measures it has taken to date

6

to identify Defendant. After obtaining the name and address of the subscriber associated

7

with IP address 72.197.35.160, Plaintiff has determined that that the subscriber may not be

8

the actual infringer. In particular, Plaintiff states that it has learned that at the time of the

9

infringing activity, the subscriber shared a student apartment with other individuals.

10

Plaintiff has been in contact with the subscriber’s father, who indicated that it was one of

11

the other individuals, and not the subscriber, who was responsible for the copyright

12

infringement alleged in this action. However, Plaintiff has been unsuccessful in learning

13

the identity of the other individual or the current location of the subscriber. Therefore,

14

Plaintiff seeks permission to subpoena the subscriber’s father for a deposition. Plaintiff

15

also seeks permission to subpoena records from the subscriber’s former apartment complex

16

in an attempt to learn the identity of the other individuals who resided with the subscriber

17

during the time of the infringing activity. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated

18

diligent efforts to identify the actual infringer, and that it is appropriate to permit Plaintiff

19

to subpoena the apartment complex to assist in those efforts. However, the Court finds that

20

it would be unduly burdensome to permit the third party deposition of the subscriber’s

21

father at this time. Plaintiff should exhaust other less burdensome discovery methods

22

before deposing non-party witnesses.

23

Plaintiff further requests leave for additional time to serve the summons and

24

complaint. In light of the fact Plaintiff has been unable to identify and serve Defendant,

25

the Court finds good cause to extend time for service of the summons and the complaint

26

for an additional sixty (60) days.

27

///

28

///
2
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)

1

II. CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Second Ex Parte Motion for Leave to

3

Issue Two FRCP 45 Subpoenas and Motion for Additional Time to Serve the Complaint is

4

GRANTED IN PART, as follows:

5
6
7

1.

At this time, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to serve a Rule 45 deposition

subpoena on Mike R. Ahmari.
2.

Plaintiff may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the Sterling Alvarado Apartments

8

for rental records for 6625 Alvarado Road, Unit 4406, San Diego, California 92120. The

9

subpoena shall only request records related to the time period associated with the alleged

10
11
12
13
14

infringing activity.
3.

Plaintiff is granted and additional sixty (60) days under Rule 4(m) to serve the

summons and complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2015

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)