Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 66.75.59.184
Filing
7
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 4 Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Service Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Plaintiff may serve Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name and address pf the subscriber assigned to the IP address 66.75.59.184. Plaintiff may not subpoena additional information about the subscriber. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 5/22/2018. (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,
Case No.: 18CV038 AJB (BGS)
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SERVE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA
PRIOR TO RULE 26(F)
CONFERENCE
JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP
address 66.75.59.184,
15
Defendant.
16
17
[ECF 4]
18
19
Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s Ex Parte Applications for Leave to Serve a
20
21
Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference is GRANTED.
I.
22
On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint
23
24
25
26
27
28
BACKGROUND
against Defendant John Doe subscriber assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) address
66.75.59.184 (“Doe Defendant”) for copyright infringement. (Compl. [ECF No. 1].) On
January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application seeking leave to serve a third
party subpoena to ascertain the identity of the Doe Defendant. (Ex Parte Appl. [ECF No.
4].)
1
18CV038 AJB (BGS)
1
In its Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is liable for direct copyright
2
infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 34-38.) Plaintiff alleges it owns the copyrights for movies it
3
distributes through adult websites and DVD sales. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 13.) Plaintiff alleges Doe
4
Defendant used BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file sharing system, to copy and distribute its
5
movies without consent. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5, 17-38.) To identify the IP address that was illegally
6
distributing its works, Plaintiff hired forensic investigator IPP International U.G. (“IPP”).
7
(Id. ¶¶ 24-28; Ex Parte Appl. at 1.)
8
As it can only identify the Doe Defendant by the IP address used, Plaintiff requests
9
permission to serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena on the Internet Service
10
Provider (“ISP”), Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) that issued the IP address to Doe
11
Defendant. (Ex Parte Appl. at 1-2.) The proposed subpoena only demands the name and
12
address of Doe Defendant, and Plaintiff indicates it will only use this information to
13
prosecute claims in the Complaint. (Id. at 2.)
14
Plaintiff claims good cause exists to grant the Ex Parte Application because:
15
(1) Plaintiff has identified Doe Defendant with sufficient specificity through geolocation
16
technology and forensic investigation; (2) Plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken
17
to locate Doe Defendant; (3) Plaintiff’s Complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss;
18
and (4) Plaintiff has established that there is a reasonable likelihood that Plaintiff can
19
identify the Doe Defendant and effectuate service. (Id. at 6-12.)
20
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
21
A. Cable Privacy Act
22
The Cable Privacy Act prohibits a cable operator from disclosing “personally
23
identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic
24
consent of the subscriber concerned.” 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). However, a “cable operator
25
may disclose such information if the disclosure is . . . made pursuant to a court order
26
authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to
27
whom the order is directed.” 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). A cable operator is “any person
28
or group of persons (A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or
2
18CV038 AJB (BGS)
1
through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or (B) who
2
otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and
3
operation of such a cable system.” 47 U.S.C. § 522(5).
4
B. Requests for Discovery Before Rule 26(f) Conference
5
Unless a court order permits discovery, it is not allowed until the parties meet and
6
confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). To
7
determine if early discovery is warranted in a particular case, the court applies a “good
8
cause” test by weighing the need for discovery to further justice against the prejudice it
9
may cause the opposing party. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273,
10
276 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 17CV2317 JAH (BLM),
11
2017 WL 6389848, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2017) (citing Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 274).
12
The Ninth Circuit has held that when a defendant’s identity is unknown at the time
13
a complaint is filed, courts may grant a plaintiff leave to take early discovery to determine
14
the defendant’s identity “unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identit[y],
15
or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629
16
F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). In determining whether to grant leave for early discovery
17
to ascertain a defendant’s identity, district courts consider: (1) whether the plaintiff can
18
“identify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the defendant is a real
19
person or entity who could be sued in federal court”; (2) whether the plaintiff has described
20
“all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant”; (3) whether the “suit against
21
defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss”; and (4) whether the requested “discovery
22
process would lead to identifying information about [the] defendant that would make
23
service of process possible.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-
24
80 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
25
III.
26
DISCUSSION
A. Identification of the Doe Defendant with Sufficient Specificity
27
Plaintiff has identified the Doe Defendant with sufficient specificity to enable the
28
Court to determine if Doe Defendant is a real person, subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.
3
18CV038 AJB (BGS)
1
Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578. To determine whether a doe defendant has been
2
identified with sufficient specificity, courts look to whether a plaintiff provided “the unique
3
IP address[ ] assigned to an individual defendant on the day of the allegedly infringing
4
conduct” and used “‘geolocation technology’ to trace the IP addresses to a physical point
5
of origin.”
6
E37917C8EEB4585E6421358FF32F29C D63C23C91, No. 12CV00186 MMA (RBB),
7
2012 WL 12884688, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2012) (citing OpenMind Sols., Inc. v. Does 1-
8
39, No. C-11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011). Identifying
9
the unique IP address and location of the IP address has been shown to meet the
10
808 Holdings, LLC v. Collective of Dec. 29, 2011 Sharing Hash
requirement for identifying a doe defendant with sufficient specificity. Id.
11
Plaintiff has submitted several declarations in support of its request for the ability to
12
serve a Rule 45 subpoena, including Tobias Fieser, an employee of forensic investigation
13
services corporation IPP and Susan B. Stalzer, an employee of Plainitff. (Ex Parte Appl,
14
Exs. B and C.) Mr. Fieser indicates that IPP “provides forensic investigation services to
15
copyright owners including an ability to track, monitor, and detect copyright infringement
16
in an online environment.” (Fieser Decl. ¶ 4.) And, specific to this case, he explains that
17
“IPP’s forensic servers connected to an electronic device using IP Address 66.75.59.184”
18
which later “was documented distributing to IPP’s servers multiple pieces of [Plaintiff’s]
19
copyrighted movies listed on Exhibit A to [Plaintiff’s] Complaint.” (Id. ¶ 7.) Ms. Stalzer’s
20
declaration indicates that she verified that the infringing files were identical, strikingly
21
similar, or substantially similar to Plaintiff’s works identified in Ex. A to the Complaint.
22
(Stalzer Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.) Finally, Plaintiff asserts it has used Maxmind,1 a geolocation
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff has also made assertions regarding the reliability and credibility of Maxmind’s
geolocation technology. (Ex Parte Appl at 7; Compl. ¶ 9 [“Over 5,000 companies, along
with United States federal and state law enforcement, use Maxmind’s GeoIP data to
locate Internet visitors, perform analytics, enforce digital rights, and efficiently route
Internet traffic.”]); see Criminal Prods., Inc. v. Doe, No. 16-CV-2589 WQH (JLB), 2016
WL 6822186, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2016) (“The Court concludes that based on the
1
4
18CV038 AJB (BGS)
1
technology, to trace Doe Defendant’s IP Address to a geographic area within this Court’s
2
personal jurisdiction.” (Compl. ¶ 9; Ex Parte Appl. at 7.)
3
Plaintiff has identified the missing party with such “sufficient specificity” so as to
4
assure the Court that the Doe Defendant is real, subject to the Court’s jurisdiction, and able
5
to be sued. Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578.
6
B. Previous Steps Taken to Locate Doe Defendant
7
Plaintiff has sufficiently described all prior attempts it has made to identify Doe
8
Defendant. Id. at 579. This element is aimed at ensuring that “plaintiffs make a good faith
9
effort to comply with the requirements of service of process and specifically identify
10
defendants.” Id.
11
address “on various web search tools . . . review[ed] numerous sources of authority,”
12
including technology guides, agency websites, and hired cyber security consultants and
13
investigators to no avail. (Ex Parte Appl. at 8.) Further, Plaintiff has “discussed the issue
14
at length with computer investigators and cyber security consultants [and] does not know
15
how else it could possibly enforce its copyrights from illegal piracy over the Internet.” (Id.
16
at 8.) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify the
17
Doe Defendant.
18
Plaintiff has asserted that it has searched for Doe Defendant’s IP
C. Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss
19
Plaintiff has also demonstrated that its claim could withstand a motion to dismiss.
20
This requires Plaintiff to “make some showing that an act giving rise to civil liability
21
actually occurred and that the discovery is aimed at revealing specific identifying features
22
of the person or entity who committed that act.” Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 580.
23
///
24
25
26
27
28
timing of the IP address tracing efforts employed by Plaintiff’s investigator, the
documented success of the Maxmind geolocation service, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts
to independently verify the location information provided by Plaintiff’s investigator,
Plaintiff has met its evidentiary burden [that jurisdiction is proper]”)
5
18CV038 AJB (BGS)
1
A claim may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b) for lack of subject matter
2
jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12 (b)(6). To prevail
3
on a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must show: “(1) ownership of a valid
4
copyright; and (2) that the defendant violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights under
5
the Copyright Act.” Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 17
6
U.S.C. § 501(a)).
7
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
8
§ 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (jurisdiction over copyright actions).
9
(Compl. ¶ 7.) Further, Plaintiff provides evidence that it is the exclusive rights holder of
10
the copyrighted works at issue. (See Compl., Ex. A.)2 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
11
infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted work via the BitTorrent file distribution network. (Compl.
12
¶¶ 23-30, Ex. A.) Plaintiff also alleges that it did not permit or consent to Doe Defendant’s
13
copying or distribution of this work. (Id. ¶ 37.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged the
14
prima facie elements of direct copyright infringement and could withstand a motion to
15
dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579-80.
16
Plaintiff has also alleged personal jurisdiction. In order to survive a motion to
17
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing
18
of jurisdiction. Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). A court has personal
19
jurisdiction over any person residing in the forum state. Brayton v. Purcell LLP v.
20
Recordon & Recordon, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citing generally
21
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877)). Venue in copyright infringement suits is proper in
22
the district in which the defendant . . . resides or may be found.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (a).
23
///
24
25
2
26
27
28
Exhibit A is a chart containing United States Copyright Office registration information,
including the registration numbers and application numbers for those works who
registration is still pending. In its Complaint, Plaintiff states that it “owns the copyrights to
the Works and the Works have either been registered with the United States Copyright
Office or have pending copyright registrations.” (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32.)
6
18CV038 AJB (BGS)
1
Here, Plaintiff has shown that both personal jurisdiction and venue are proper by
2
alleging that “Defendant used an [IP address] traced to a physical address located within
3
this District to commit copyright infringement” and that Plaintiff has “used IP address
4
geolocation technology . . . to determine that Defendant’s IP address traced to a physical
5
address in this District.” (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that “a substantial
6
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District” and Doe
7
Defendant resides in this District. (Id. ¶ 10.)
8
D. Requested Discovery Will Lead to Identifying Information
9
Finally, Plaintiff has satisfied the last element required in Columbia Insurance by
10
demonstrating the requested discovery will lead to identifying information about Doe
11
Defendant that would make service of process possible. Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 580.
12
As explained above, Plaintiff’s investigation has revealed a unique IP address. Due to the
13
fact that the only entity able to correlate an IP address to a specific individual is the ISP,
14
Spectrum (Time Warner Cable), the requested Rule 45 subpoena would lead to information
15
making physical service of process possible.
16
IV.
17
18
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has met its burden of showing good cause and the Ex Parte Application
(ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
19
1. Plaintiff may serve Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) with a Rule 45 subpoena
20
commanding the ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name and address of the
21
subscriber assigned the IP address 66.75.59.184. Plaintiff may not subpoena
22
additional information about the subscriber.
23
24
25
26
2. Plaintiff may only use the disclosed information to protect its copyrights in
pursuing this litigation.
3. Plaintiff shall attach a copy of this Order to any Rule 45 subpoena issued pursuant
to this Order.
27
4. Within fourteen (14) calendar days after the service of the subpoena, the ISP
28
shall notify the subscriber that its identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff.
7
18CV038 AJB (BGS)
1
5. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have thirty (30)
2
calendar days from the date of such notice to seek a protective order or challenge
3
the disclosure by filing an appropriate pleading with this Court contesting the
4
subpoena.
5
6. If the ISP wishes to move to quash the subpoena, it shall do so before the return
6
date of the subpoena. The return date of the subpoena must allow for forty-five
7
(45) calendar days from service to production. If a motion to quash or other
8
customer challenge is brought, the ISP shall preserve the information sought by
9
Plaintiff in the subpoena pending resolution of such motion or challenge.
10
7. As Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) qualifies as a “cable operator,” as defined by
11
47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it shall comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a
12
copy of this Order to the Defendant.
13
8. Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45
14
subpoena served on the ISP for the sole purpose of enforcing Plaintiff’s rights as
15
set forth in its Complaint.
16
17
Dated: May 22, 2018
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
18CV038 AJB (BGS)
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?