Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.7.69.57

Filing 9

ORDER granting 8 Motion for Reconsideration. As provided herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Early Discovery now is GRANTED: 1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena, pursuant to and compliant with the procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on Cox Comm unications seeking only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the subject IP address for the relevant time period. 2.The subpoena must provide at least forty-five (45) calendar days from service to production. Cox Communications may s eek to quash or modify the subpoena as provided at Rule 45(d)(3). 3.Cox Communications shall notify its subscriber, no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena, that his or her identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall then have thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the notice to seek a protective order, to move to quash or modify the subpoena or file any other responsive pleading. 4.Plaintiff shall ser ve a copy of this Order with the subpoena upon Cox Communications. Cox Communications, in turn, must provide a copy of this Order along with the required notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought pursuant to this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/17/16. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

DOE - 68.7.69.57,

15

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR EARLY DISCOVERY
[ECF NO. 8]

16
17

On September 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed its initial Ex Parte Motion to

18

Expedite Discovery. (ECF No. 4). The Court denied without prejudice the

19

initial motion on September 26, 2016, because Plaintiff failed to state when

20

it conducted the geolocation search to determine that the subscriber of the

21

subject Internet Protocol (“IP”) address likely was subject to the personal

22

jurisdiction of this Court. (ECF No. 5 at 4-5). On September 29, 2016,

23

Plaintiff filed a second Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Discovery. (ECF No. 6).

24

On October 3, 2016, the second motion was denied because Plaintiff again

25

failed to disclose when the asserted geolocation was performed. (ECF No.

26

7). Before the Court now is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider filed on October
1
16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD

1

14, 2016. (ECF No. 8). Along with its motion, Plaintiff submitted a new

2

declaration of counsel which states that the MaverikMonitor tool used by

3

Plaintiff’s investigators obtain geolocation data for the suspected infringing

4

IP address only seconds after confirming that the IP address is engaged in

5

allegedly illegal activity. (ECF No. 8-1 ¶ 14). Third time is a charm.

6
7

II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Formal discovery generally is not permitted without a court

8

order before the parties have conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). “[H]owever, in rare cases, courts

10

have made exceptions, permitting limited discovery to ensue after filing of

11

the complaint to permit the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts necessary

12

to permit service on the defendant.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,

13

185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d

14

637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Requests for early or expedited discovery are

15

granted upon a showing by the moving party of good cause. See Semitool,

16

Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

17

(applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff’s

18

request for expedited discovery”).

19

“The Ninth Circuit has held that when the defendants’ identities

20

are unknown at the time the complaint is filed, courts may grant plaintiffs

21

leave to take early discovery to determine the defendants’ identities ‘unless

22

it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the

23

complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.’” 808 Holdings, LLC v.

24

Collective of December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12-cv-0186 MMA (RBB),

25

2012 WL 1648838, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (quoting Gillespie, 629 F.2d at

26
2
16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD

1

642). “A district court’s decision to grant discovery to determine

2

jurisdictional facts is a matter of discretion.” Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at

3

578 (citing Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430

4

n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)).

5

District courts apply a three-factor test when considering

6

motions for early discovery to identify Doe defendants. Id. at 578-80. First,

7

“the plaintiff should identify the missing party with sufficient specificity

8

such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity

9

who could be sued in federal court.” Id. at 578. Second, the plaintiff

10

“should identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant” to

11

ensure that the plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and serve

12

process on the defendant. Id. at 579. Third, the “plaintiff should establish

13

to the Court’s satisfaction that plaintiff’s suit against defendant could

14

withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id. (citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642).

15

Further “the plaintiff should file a request for discovery with the Court,

16

along with a statement of reasons justifying the specific discovery requested

17

as well as identification of a limited number of persons or entities on whom

18

discovery process might be served and for which there is a reasonable

19

likelihood that the discovery process will lead to identifying information

20

about defendant that would make service of process possible.” Id. at 580.

21

III. ANALYSIS

22

A.

23

Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity
“A plaintiff identifies Doe defendants with sufficient specificity

24

by providing the unique IP addresses assigned to an individual defendant

25

on the day of the allegedly infringing conduct, and by using ‘geolocation

26
3
16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD

1

technology’ to trace the IP addresses to a physical point of origin.” 808

2

Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838, at *4 (quoting OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v.

3

Does 1-39, No. C-11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011);

4

Pink Lotus Entm’t, LLC v. Does 1-46, No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011 WL

5

2470986 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)).

6

In Exhibit 2 to its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the user of

7

the subject IP address engaged in allegedly infringing activity involving

8

Plaintiff’s copyrighted work from May 17 through May 29, 2016. (ECF No.

9

1-3). In support of the instant Motion, Plaintiff now has submitted

10

declarations regarding the manner in which the allegedly infringing IP

11

address was identified; identifying the ISP as Cox Communications; and

12

located the IP address in San Diego, California, within the Southern

13

District of California. (See ECF Nos. 4-3, 6-3, 6-4 and 8-1). Critically, as

14

mentioned above, the most recent Declaration of James S. Davis has

15

provided the missing piece regarding when the geolocation occurred –

16

assertedly within seconds of identifying the allegedly infringing IP address.

17

(ECF No. 8-1 ¶ 14),

18

In these cases, it is most likely that the subscriber is a residential user

19

and the IP address assigned by ISP is “dynamic.”1 Consequently, it matters

20

when the geolocation was performed. In the context of dynamic IP

21
22
23
24
25
26

“Static IP addresses are addresses which remain set for a specific user. . . .
Dynamic IP addresses are randomly assigned to internet users and change
frequently. . . . Consequently, for dynamic IP addresses, a single IP address
may be re-assigned to many different computers in a short period of time.”
Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332, 356-57 (D. D.C.
2011)(citations omitted).

1

4
16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD

1

addresses, “a person using [an IP] address one month may not have been

2

the same person using it the next.” State of Connecticut v. Shields, No.

3

CR06352303, 2007 WL 1828875 *6 (Conn. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2007). If

4

performed in temporal proximity to the offending downloads, the

5

geolocation may be probative of the physical location of the subscriber. If

6

not, less so, potentially to the point of irrelevance. Here, Plaintiff has

7

conducted the required geolocation close enough in time to the allegedly

8

offending behavior to be probative.

9

Consequently, Plaintiff has identified the Defendant, at this point,

10

with sufficient specificity. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 4715200, at

11

*2 (concluding that plaintiff satisfied the first factor by identifying the

12

defendants’ IP addresses and by tracing the IP addresses to a point of origin

13

within the State of California); Pink Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3

14

(same). In addition, Plaintiff has presented evidence that the identified IP

15

address is physically located in this district.

16

B.

Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant
Plaintiff appears to have obtained and investigated the available

17
18

data pertaining to the alleged infringement in a good faith effort to locate

19

Defendant. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 4715200, at *3; MCGIP,

20

LLC v. Does 1-149, 2011 WL 3607666, *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011); Pink

21

Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3.

22
23

C.

Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss
Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff owns the registered

24

copyright of the work that Defendant allegedly copied and distributed using

25

the BitTorrent file distribution network and that it did not permit or

26

consent to Defendant’s copying or distribution of its work. It appears
5
16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD

1

Plaintiff has stated a prima facie claim for copyright infringement that can

2

withstand a motion to dismiss.

3

D.

Personal Jurisdiction
As discussed above, Plaintiff has sufficiently established that it

4
5

is likely that the Defendant is located within the Southern District of

6

California and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Court.

7

E.

“The venue of suits for infringement of copyright is not

8
9

Venue

determined by the general provision governing suits in the federal district

10

courts, rather by the venue provision of the Copyright Act.” Goldberg v.

11

Cameron, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

12

1400(a); Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174, 176 (1923)). “In

13

copyright infringement actions, venue is proper ‘in the district in which the

14

defendant or his agent resides or may be found.’” Brayton Purcell LLP v.

15

Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28

16

U.S.C. § 1400(a)). “The Ninth Circuit interprets this statutory provision to

17

allow venue ‘in any judicial district in which the defendant would be

18

amendable to personal jurisdiction if the district were a separate state.’” Id.
As discussed above, Defendant is likely to be located in this

19
20

District and the acts complained of also likely occurred here. Accordingly,

21

venue appears proper in this District at this time.

22
23

F.

Specific Discovery Request
Plaintiff has not provided a proposed subpoena. Plaintiff stated,

24

however, that it will seek to obtain only the name and address of the

25

subscriber associated with the IP address from the ISP.

26
6
16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD

1

The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause to subpoena

2

records from Cox Communications identifying the subscriber assigned to

3

the subject IP address at the identified times. The subpoena must be

4

limited to documents identifying the subscriber’s name and address during

5

the relevant period. That information should be sufficient for Plaintiff to be

6

able to identify and serve Defendant. If Plaintiff is unable to identify and

7

serve Defendant after receiving a response to the subpoena, Plaintiff may

8

seek leave from the Court to pursue additional discovery.

9
10

G.

Cable Privacy Act
Finally, the Court must consider the requirements of the Cable

11

Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551. The Act generally prohibits cable operators

12

from disclosing personally identifiable information regarding subscribers

13

without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C.

14

§ 551(c)(1). A cable operator, however, may disclose such information if the

15

disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable operator provides

16

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

17

that Plaintiff intends to subpoena in this case is a cable operator within the

18

meaning of the Act.

19
20
21
22

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for
Early Discovery is GRANTED, as follows:
1.

Plaintiff may serve a subpoena, pursuant to and compliant

23

with the procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on Cox Communications seeking

24

only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the subject IP

25

address for the relevant time period.

26

2.

The subpoena must provide at least forty-five (45) calendar
7
16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD

1

days from service to production. Cox Communications may seek to quash or

2

modify the subpoena as provided at Rule 45(d)(3).

3

3.

Cox Communications shall notify its subscriber, no later

4

than fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena, that his or

5

her identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The subscriber whose

6

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

7

the date of the notice to seek a protective order, to move to quash or modify

8

the subpoena or file any other responsive pleading.

9

4.

Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with the subpoena

10

upon Cox Communications. Cox Communications, in turn, must provide a

11

copy of this Order along with the required notice to the subscriber whose

12

identity is sought pursuant to this Order.

13
14
15

5.

No other discovery is authorized at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 17, 2016

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8
16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD