Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-68.101.189.175
Filing
7
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 5 Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Discovery. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena on Dft's ISP, Cox Communications, seeking the name and address only of the subscriber assigned to Dft's IP address during the time period of the alleged infringing activity described in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. No other discovery is authorized at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 5/4/2016. (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
Case No.: 16cv980-BAS (DHB)
DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC, a Texas
limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXPEDITE
DISCOVERY
DOE-68.101.189.175,
[ECF No. 5]
13
14
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
On April 22, 2016, 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, no
20
opposition or reply briefs have been filed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s
21
Motion is GRANTED.
22
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
23
On April 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Doe, a subscriber assigned IP
24
address 68.101.189.175 (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges a single cause of
25
action for direct copyright infringement. Plaintiff asserts that it is the registered copyright
26
holder of the motion picture Dallas Buyers Club. (See ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 6.) Plaintiff
27
contends Defendant used the BitTorrent file distribution network to copy and distribute
28
Plaintiff’s copyrighted work through the Internet without Plaintiff’s permission. (ECF No.
1
16cv980-BAS (DHB)
1
1 at ¶ 35.)
2
On April 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion in which Plaintiff seeks leave
3
to 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 be
7
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 Cir.
15
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 the
20
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 the
22
identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.’” 808 Holdings, LLC
23
v. Collective of December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12-cv-0186 MMA (RBB), 2012
24
WL 1648838, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (quoting Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642). “A district
25
court’s decision to grant discovery to determine jurisdictional facts is a matter of
26
discretion.” Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578 (citing Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo
27
Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)).
28
///
2
16cv980-BAS (DHB)
1
District courts apply a three-factor test when considering motions for early discovery
2
to identify Doe defendants. Id. at 578-80. First, “the plaintiff should identify the missing
3
party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real
4
person or entity who could be sued in federal court.” Id. at 578. Second, the plaintiff
5
“should identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant” to ensure that the
6
plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and serve process on the defendant. Id. at
7
579. Third, the “plaintiff should establish to the Court’s satisfaction that plaintiff’s suit
8
against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id. (citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at
9
642). Further “the plaintiff should file a request for discovery with the Court, along with
10
a statement of reasons justifying the specific discovery requested as well as identification
11
of a limited number of persons or entities on whom discovery process might be served and
12
for which there is a reasonable likelihood that the discovery process will lead to identifying
13
information about defendant that would make service of process possible.” Id. at 580.
14
15
III. ANALYSIS
A.
Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity
16
First, Plaintiff must identify Defendant with enough specificity to enable the Court
17
to determine that Defendant is a real person or entity who would be subject to the
18
jurisdiction of this Court. Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578. This Court has previously
19
determined that “a plaintiff identifies Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by
20
providing the unique IP addresses assigned to an individual defendant on the day of the
21
allegedly infringing conduct, and by using ‘geolocation technology’ to trace the IP
22
addresses to a physical point of origin.” 808 Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838, at *4 (quoting
23
OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. C-11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200 (N.D.
24
Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); Pink Lotus Entm’t, LLC v. Does 1-46, No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011 WL
25
2470986 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)).
26
Here, Plaintiff has filed a chart that lists the unique IP address corresponding to
27
Defendant, and the dates and times of the purportedly infringing activity, as well as the city
28
in which the IP address is located. (ECF No. 1-2.) Consequently, Plaintiff has identified
3
16cv980-BAS (DHB)
1
Defendant with sufficient specificity. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2
2
(concluding that plaintiff satisfied the first factor by identifying the defendants’ IP
3
addresses and by tracing the IP addresses to a point of origin within the State of California);
4
Pink Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3 (same). In addition, Plaintiff has presented
5
evidence that the identified IP address is physically located in this district. (See ECF Nos.
6
1-2; and 5-3 at ¶8, 9.)
7
B.
Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant
8
Next, Plaintiff must describe all prior steps it has taken to identify the defendant in
9
a good faith effort to locate and serve him or her. See Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579.
10
Plaintiff states it has been able to identify much about Defendant, including which ISP
11
provider he or she uses, where he or she is generally located, and what software he or she
12
used to commit the alleged acts of infringement. (ECF No. 5-2 at 5.) However, Plaintiff
13
generally maintains that there are no other practical measures available to determine the
14
actual identity of Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff appears to have obtained and investigated the
15
available data pertaining to the alleged infringement in a good faith effort to locate
16
Defendant. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 4715200, at *3; MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-
17
149, 2011 WL 3607666, *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011); Pink Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL
18
2470986, at *3.
19
C.
Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss
20
“Finally, to be entitled to early discovery, [Plaintiff] must demonstrate that its
21
Complaint can withstand a motion to dismiss.” 808 Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838 at *5
22
(citing Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579).
23
1.
24
In order to establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show: (1) ownership of
25
a valid copyright, and (2) that the defendant violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights
26
under the Copyright Act. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004); 17
27
U.S.C. § 501(a). Here, Plaintiff alleges it owns the registered copyright of the work that
28
Defendant allegedly copied and distributed using the BitTorrent file distribution network.
Ability to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted
4
16cv980-BAS (DHB)
1
(ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 6.) Plaintiff also alleges it did not permit or consent to Defendant’s
2
copying or distribution of its work. (Id. at ¶ 35.) It appears Plaintiff has stated a prima
3
facie claim for copyright infringement that can withstand a motion to dismiss.
4
2.
5
Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdictional facts. See Columbia Ins. Co.,
6
185 F.R.D. at 578. Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates that Defendant is located in this judicial
7
district. (See ECF No. 1-2 (showing the IP address associated with Defendant is located in
8
San Diego, California). The Complaint also alleges that Defendant’s acts of copyright
9
infringement occurred using an IP address traced to a physical location in this district, and
10
Personal Jurisdiction
that Defendant is believed to reside in California. (ECF No. 1. at ¶ 3, 14.)
11
Therefore, at this early juncture, it appears Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to
12
show it can likely withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because
13
Defendant’s IP address was traced to a location in this district. See 808 Holdings, 2012
14
WL 1648838 at *6-7.
15
2.
16
“The venue of suits for infringement of copyright is not determined by the general
17
provision governing suits in the federal district courts, rather by the venue provision of the
18
Copyright Act.” Goldberg v. Cameron, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
19
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a); Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174, 176 (1923)).
20
“In copyright infringement actions, venue is proper ‘in the district in which the defendant
21
or his agent resides or may be found.’” Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon,
22
606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a)). “The Ninth Circuit
23
interprets this statutory provision to allow venue ‘in any judicial district in which the
24
defendant would be amendable to personal jurisdiction if the district were a separate
25
state.’” Id.
Venue
26
Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because although Defendant’s true identity is
27
unknown, Defendant is believed to reside (and therefore can be found in this district), and
28
a substantial part of the infringing acts complained of occurred in this district. (ECF No.
5
16cv980-BAS (DHB)
1
1 at ¶ 3, 13.) Defendant appears to have an IP address in this district. (See ECF No. 1-2.)
2
Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a declaration explaining that counsel used geolocation
3
trackers to trace the IP address to San Diego County. (ECF No. 5-3 at ¶8, 9.) Accordingly,
4
Plaintiff’s Complaint can likely survive a motion to dismiss.
5
D.
Specific Discovery Request
6
Here, Plaintiff requests leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Cox Communications.
7
Plaintiff indicates the subpoena will be limited to requesting the name and address of the
8
subscriber associated with Defendant’s IP address. The Court finds this limitation is
9
appropriate.
The Court further finds that the subpoena should be limited to
10
requesting information about the subscriber during the relevant time period,
11
which is that identified in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. Therefore, the Court
12
determines Plaintiff has shown good cause to subpoena records from Cox Communications
13
for the identity of the subscriber assigned to Defendant’s IP address at the identified times.
14
However, once Plaintiff is able to identify and serve Defendant, the need for early
15
discovery ceases. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for leave to conduct any further discovery
16
is denied.
17
E.
Cable Privacy Act
18
Finally, the Court must consider the requirements of the Cable Privacy Act, 47
19
U.S.C. § 551. The Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing personally
20
identifiable information regarding subscribers without the prior written or electronic
21
consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). A cable operator, however, may disclose
22
such information if the disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable operator
23
provides the subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). The ISP that
24
Plaintiff intends to subpoena in this case is a cable operator within the meaning of the Act.
25
IV. CONCLUSION
26
27
28
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery
is GRANTED, as follows:
1.
Plaintiff may serve a subpoena on Defendant’s ISP, Cox Communications,
6
16cv980-BAS (DHB)
1
seeking the name and address only of the subscriber assigned to Defendant’s IP address
2
during the time period of the alleged infringing activity that is described in Exhibit 1 to the
3
Complaint.
4
2.
The subpoena must provide a minimum of forty-five (45) days notice before
5
any production and shall be limited to one category of documents identifying the particular
6
subscriber listed on Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) The requested
7
information should be limited to the name and address of the subscriber during the time
8
period of the alleged infringing activity. Cox Communications may seek a protective order
9
if it determines there is a legitimate basis for doing so.
10
3.
Cox Communications shall have fourteen (14) calendar days after service of
11
the subpoena to notify the subscriber that his or her identity has been subpoenaed by
12
Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall then have thirty (30)
13
calendar days from the date of the notice to seek a protective order or file any other
14
responsive pleading.
15
4.
Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with any subpoena obtained and
16
served pursuant to this Order to Cox Communications. Cox Communications, in turn, must
17
provide a copy of this Order along with the required notice to the subscriber whose identity
18
is sought pursuant to this Order.
19
5.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
No other discovery is authorized at this time.
Dated: May 4, 2016
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
16cv980-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?