Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. DOE-72.197.35.160
Filing
6
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 5 Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Discovery. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena on Dft ISP, Cox Communications seeking the name and address of the subscriber assigned to Dft's IP address. No deposition or other discovery is authorized at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 8/19/2015. (jah)
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,
v.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXPEDITE
DISCOVERY
DOE-72.197.35.160,
[ECF No. 5]
13
14
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC filed an Ex Parte Motion for
19
Expedited Discovery. (ECF No. 5.) Because Defendant has not been named or served,
20
no opposition or reply briefs have been filed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s
21
Motion is GRANTED.
22
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
23
On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Doe, a subscriber assigned IP
24
address 72.197.35.160 (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges a single cause of
25
action for direct copyright infringement.
26
copyright holder of the motion picture Dallas Buyers Club. (See ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 6.)
27
Plaintiff contends Defendant used the BitTorrent file distribution network to copy and
28
distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted work through the Internet without Plaintiff’s permission.
Plaintiff asserts that it is the registered
1
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)
1
(ECF No. 1 at ¶ 35.)
2
On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion in which Plaintiff seeks leave to
3
take early discovery to learn the identity of Defendant from his or her Internet Service
4
Provider (“ISP”), Cox Communications. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order permitting
5
it to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Cox Communications for the identity of the account
6
holder assigned to Defendant’s IP address, and for further reasonable discovery as may
7
be needed.
8
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
9
Generally, discovery is not permitted without a court order before the parties have
10
conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).
11
“[H]owever, in rare cases, courts have made exceptions, permitting limited discovery to
12
ensue after filing of the complaint to permit the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts
13
necessary to permit service on the defendant.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185
14
F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th
15
Cir. 1980)). Requests for early or expedited discovery are granted upon a showing by the
16
moving party of good cause. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D.
17
273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (applying “the conventional standard of good cause in
18
evaluating Plaintiff’s request for expedited discovery”).
19
“The Ninth Circuit has held that when the defendants’ identities are unknown at
20
the time the complaint is filed, courts may grant plaintiffs leave to take early discovery to
21
determine the defendants’ identities ‘unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover
22
the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.’” 808
23
Holdings, LLC v. Collective of December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12-cv-0186 MMA
24
(RBB), 2012 WL 1648838, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (quoting Gillespie, 629 F.2d at
25
642). “A district court’s decision to grant discovery to determine jurisdictional facts is a
26
matter of discretion.” Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578 (citing Wells Fargo & Co. v.
27
Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)).
28
///
2
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)
1
District courts apply a three-factor test when considering motions for early
2
discovery to identify Doe defendants. Id. at 578-80. First, “the plaintiff should identify
3
the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that
4
defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court.” Id. at 578.
5
Second, the plaintiff “should identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive
6
defendant” to ensure that the plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and serve
7
process on the defendant. Id. at 579. Third, the “plaintiff should establish to the Court’s
8
satisfaction that plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss.”
9
Id. (citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642). Further “the plaintiff should file a request for
10
discovery with the Court, along with a statement of reasons justifying the specific
11
discovery requested as well as identification of a limited number of persons or entities on
12
whom discovery process might be served and for which there is a reasonable likelihood
13
that the discovery process will lead to identifying information about defendant that would
14
make service of process possible.” Id. at 580.
15
16
III. ANALYSIS
A.
Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity
17
First, Plaintiff must identify Defendant with enough specificity to enable the Court
18
to determine that Defendant is a real person or entity who would be subject to the
19
jurisdiction of this Court. Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578. This Court has previously
20
determined that “a plaintiff identifies Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by
21
providing the unique IP addresses assigned to an individual defendant on the day of the
22
allegedly infringing conduct, and by using ‘geolocation technology’ to trace the IP
23
addresses to a physical point of origin.” 808 Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838, at *4 (quoting
24
OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. C-11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200 (N.D.
25
Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); Pink Lotus Entm’t, LLC v. Does 1-46, No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011
26
WL 2470986 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)).
27
Here, Plaintiff has filed a chart that lists the unique IP address corresponding to
28
Defendant, and the dates and times of the purportedly infringing activity, as well as the
3
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)
1
city in which the IP address is located. (ECF No. 1-2.) Consequently, Plaintiff has
2
identified Defendant with sufficient specificity. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL
3
4715200, at *2 (concluding that plaintiff satisfied the first factor by identifying the
4
defendants’ IP addresses and by tracing the IP addresses to a point of origin within the
5
State of California); Pink Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3 (same). In addition,
6
Plaintiff has presented evidence that the identified IP address is physically located in this
7
district. (See ECF No. 1-2.)
8
B.
Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant
9
Next, Plaintiff must describe all prior steps it has taken to identify the defendant in
10
a good faith effort to locate and serve him or her. See Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579.
11
Plaintiff states it has been able to identify much about Defendant, including which ISP
12
provider he or she uses, where he or she is generally located, and what software he or she
13
used to commit the alleged acts of infringement. (ECF No. 5-1 at 4.) However, Plaintiff
14
generally maintains that there are no other practical measures available to determine the
15
actual identity of Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff appears to have obtained and investigated
16
the available data pertaining to the alleged infringement in a good faith effort to locate
17
Defendant. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 4715200, at *3; MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-
18
149, 2011 WL 3607666, *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011); Pink Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL
19
2470986, at *3.
20
C.
Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss
21
“Finally, to be entitled to early discovery, [Plaintiff] must demonstrate that its
22
Complaint can withstand a motion to dismiss.” 808 Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838 at *5
23
(citing Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579).
24
1.
25
In order to establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show: (1) ownership
26
of a valid copyright, and (2) that the defendant violated the copyright owner’s exclusive
27
rights under the Copyright Act. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir.
28
2004); 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). Here, Plaintiff alleges it owns the registered copyright of the
Ability to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted
4
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)
1
work that Defendant allegedly copied and distributed using the BitTorrent file
2
distribution network. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 6.) Plaintiff also alleges it did not permit or
3
consent to Defendant’s copying or distribution of its work. (Id. at ¶ 35.)
4
Plaintiff has stated a prima facie claim for copyright infringement that can withstand a
5
motion to dismiss.
It appears
6
2.
7
Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdictional facts. See Columbia Ins.
8
Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578. Plaintiff’s motion does not discuss whether this Court has
9
personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Personal Jurisdiction
However, Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates that
10
Defendant is located in this judicial district. (See ECF No. 1-2 (showing the IP address
11
associated with Defendant is located in San Diego). The Complaint also alleges that
12
Defendant’s acts of copyright infringement occurred using an IP address traced to a
13
physical location in this district, and that Defendant is believed to reside in California.
14
(ECF No. 1. at ¶ 3, 14.)
15
Therefore, at this early juncture, it appears Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to
16
show it can likely withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because
17
Defendant’s IP address was traced to a location in this district. See 808 Holdings, 2012
18
WL 1648838 at *6-7.
19
2.
20
“The venue of suits for infringement of copyright is not determined by the general
21
provision governing suits in the federal district courts, rather by the venue provision of
22
the Copyright Act.” Goldberg v. Cameron, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
23
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a); Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174, 176
24
(1923)). “In copyright infringement actions, venue is proper ‘in the district in which the
25
defendant or his agent resides or may be found.’” Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon &
26
Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a)). “The
27
Ninth Circuit interprets this statutory provision to allow venue ‘in any judicial district in
28
which the defendant would be amendable to personal jurisdiction if the district were a
Venue
5
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)
1
separate state.’” Id.
2
Plaintiff does not address venue in its motion. In the Complaint, however, Plaintiff
3
alleges venue is proper because although Defendant’s true identity is unknown,
4
Defendant is believed to reside (and therefore can be found in this district), and a
5
substantial part of the infringing acts complained of occurred in this district. (ECF No. 1
6
at ¶ 3, 13.) Defendant appears to have an IP address in this district. Accordingly,
7
Plaintiff’s Complaint can likely survive a motion to dismiss.
8
D.
Specific Discovery Request
9
Here, Plaintiff has not provided a proposed subpoena or proposed discovery
10
requests. However, Plaintiff indicates that it will seek to obtain the true name, address,
11
telephone number and email address of the subscriber associated with Defendant’s IP
12
address from Cox Communications. Plaintiff also requests leave to conduct a deposition
13
of the subscriber identified by Cox Communications if needed to find the true identity of
14
the actual Defendant.
15
The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause to subpoena records from Cox
16
Communication for the identity of the subscriber assigned to Defendant’s IP address.
17
However, the subpoena to Cox Communications should be limited to a request for the
18
subscriber’s name and address. That information should be sufficient for Plaintiff to be
19
able to identify and serve Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff is not permitted to request the
20
subscriber’s telephone number or email address. Further, once Plaintiff is able to identify
21
and serve Defendant, the need for early discovery ceases.
22
request for leave to conduct further discovery, including a deposition of the subscriber is
23
denied at this time. If Plaintiff is unable to identify and serve Defendant after receiving a
24
response to the subpoena to Cox Communications, Plaintiff may seek leave from the
25
Court to pursue additional discovery.
26
E.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Cable Privacy Act
27
Finally, the Court must consider the requirements of the Cable Privacy Act, 47
28
U.S.C. § 551. The Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing personally
6
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)
1
identifiable information regarding subscribers without the prior written or electronic
2
consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). A cable operator, however, may
3
disclose such information if the disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable
4
operator provides the subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). The
5
ISP that Plaintiff intends to subpoena in this case is a cable operator within the meaning
6
of the Act.
7
IV. CONCLUSION
8
9
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited
Discovery is GRANTED, as follows:
10
11
1.
Plaintiff may serve a subpoena on Defendant’s ISP, Cox Communications,
seeking the name and address of the subscriber assigned to Defendant’s IP address.
12
2.
The subpoena must provide a minimum of forty-five (45) days notice before
13
any production and shall be limited to one category of documents identifying the
14
particular subscriber listed on Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) The
15
requested information should be limited to the name and address of the subscriber. Cox
16
Communications may seek a protective order if it determines there is a legitimate basis
17
for doing so.
18
3.
Cox Communications shall have fourteen (14) calendar days after service of
19
the subpoena to notify the subscriber that his or her identity has been subpoenaed by
20
Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall then have thirty (30)
21
calendar days from the date of the notice to seek a protective order or file any other
22
responsive pleading.
23
4.
Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with any subpoena obtained and
24
served pursuant to this Order to Cox Communications. Cox Communications, in turn,
25
must provide a copy of this Order along with the required notice to the subscriber whose
26
identity is sought pursuant to this Order.
27
///
28
///
7
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)
1
5.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
No deposition or other discovery is authorized at this time.
Dated: August 19, 2015
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
15cv1614-BAS (DHB)
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?