Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
Filing
5
Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (ECF No. #4 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez on 11/18/21. (jmo)
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.: 21cv1726-BAS-LL
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SERVE A THIRD PARTY
SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE
26(f) CONFERENCE
JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP
address 45.16.231.149,
15
Defendant.
16
[ECF No. 4]
17
18
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s November 4, 2021 “Ex-Parte Application
19
for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference.” ECF No. 4.
20
Because the Defendant has not been identified, no opposition or reply briefs have been
21
filed. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s application and all supporting documents, the application
22
is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.
23
I.
24
Plaintiff alleges it “is the owner of original, award winning adult motion pictures
25
featured on its subscription-based adult websites.” ECF No. 4-1 at 7. On October 6, 2021,
26
Plaintiff filed a complaint against John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.16.231.149
27
alleging copyright infringement. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges Defendant
28
illegally infringed by downloading and distributing thirty-one of its copyrighted movies
BACKGROUND
1
21cv1726-BAS-LL
1
over the BitTorrent file distribution network for an extended period of time. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 4.
2
Plaintiff describes the BitTorrent network as a “system designed to quickly distribute large
3
files over the Internet.” Id. at ¶ 18. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant, who “attempted
4
to hide this theft by infringing Plaintiff’s content anonymously,” can be identified by his
5
or her Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), AT&T U-verse, through his or her IP address
6
45.16.231.149. Id. at ¶ 5.
7
On November 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant application. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff
8
seeks an order from the Court allowing it to serve a subpoena to Defendant’s ISP seeking
9
Defendant’s true name and address pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 so that
10
Plaintiff may serve Defendant and prosecute the claims in its complaint. ECF No. 4-1 at 8.
11
12
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A.
The Cable Privacy Act
13
The Cable Privacy Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing
14
personally identifiable information regarding subscribers without the prior written or
15
electronic consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). However, a cable operator may
16
disclose such information if the disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable
17
operator provides the subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). A cable
18
operator is defined as “any person or group of persons (A) who provides cable service over
19
a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in
20
such cable system, or (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any
21
arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system.” 47 U.S.C. § 522(5).
22
B.
Early Discovery
23
A party may not seek discovery from any source before the Rule 26(f) conference
24
unless that party first obtains a stipulation or court order permitting early discovery. Fed.
25
R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the “good cause” standard in deciding
26
whether to permit early discovery. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D.
27
273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (adopting the conventional standard of “good cause” in
28
evaluating a request for expedited discovery). Good cause exists “where the need for
2
21cv1726-BAS-LL
1
expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the
2
prejudice to the responding party.” Id. Good cause for expedited discovery has been found
3
in cases involving claims of infringement and unfair competition. Id. In infringement cases,
4
expedited discovery is frequently limited to allowing plaintiffs to identify Doe defendants.
5
See Cell Firm Holdings, LLC v. Doe-72.220.126.76, Case No.: 16cv2234-BEN (BLM),
6
2016 WL 4793161, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) (granting motion for expedited
7
discovery in infringement case to obtain only the true name and address of the Doe
8
defendant); Quad Int’l, Inc. v. Does 1-6, No. 2:12-cv-2631 LKK KJN, 2013 WL 142865,
9
at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013) (granting motion for expedited discovery in infringement
10
case to obtain Doe defendant’s name and contact information); UMG Recordings, Inc. v.
11
Doe, No. C-08-03999 RMW, 2008 WL 4104207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2008) (granting
12
leave to take expedited discovery in infringement case for documents that would reveal the
13
identity and contact information for each Doe defendant).
14
District courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a three-factor test for determining whether
15
good cause exists to allow for expedited discovery to identify certain defendants. Columbia
16
Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999). First, the plaintiff
17
should “identify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can
18
determine that the defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court.”
19
Id. at 578. Second, the plaintiff must describe “all previous steps taken to locate the elusive
20
defendant” to ensure that plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify the defendant.
21
Id. at 579. Third, plaintiff should establish that its lawsuit could withstand a motion to
22
dismiss. Id.
23
24
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity
25
For the Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff must first identify the Doe
26
defendant with sufficient specificity to enable the Court to determine that the Doe
27
defendant is a real person subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. Id. at 578. District courts in
28
the Ninth Circuit have determined that a plaintiff identifies Doe defendants with sufficient
3
21cv1726-BAS-LL
1
specificity by providing a unique IP address on the day of the alleged infringement, and by
2
using “geolocation technology” to trace the IP addresses to a physical point of origin. See
3
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Case No.: 18cv231-BEN (BLM), 2018 WL 1071711, at
4
*2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2018) (citations omitted); OpenMind Sols., Inc. v. Does 1-39, No.
5
C 11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011) (finding plaintiff met
6
its burden to identify the Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by identifying the
7
unique IP addresses of individuals engaged in BitTorrent protocol and using geolocation
8
technology to trace the IP addresses to a point of origin within the state of California); Pink
9
Lotus Entm’t, LLC v. Does 1-46, No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3 (N.D.
10
Cal. June 21, 2011) (same). Others have found that merely identifying the IP addresses
11
assigned to the defendants on the day of the purported infringement is sufficient to satisfy
12
the first factor. See, e.g., First Time Videos, LLC v. Does, No. C 11-01675 LB, 2011 WL
13
1431619, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2011) (“First, First Time Videos has identified the Doe
14
defendants with sufficient specificity by submitting a chart listing each of the defendants
15
by the IP address assigned to them on the day it alleges the particular defendant engaged
16
in the infringing conduct.”). This Court finds the first standard persuasive.
17
Here, Plaintiff provides a declaration from David Williamson, an information and
18
systems management consultant, currently employed as Plaintiff’s Chief Technology
19
Officer. ECF No. 4-2, Declaration of David Williamson (“Williamson Decl.”), ¶¶ 11-12.
20
Mr. Williamson states that he “oversaw the design, development, and overall creation of
21
the infringement detection system called VXN Scan,” which Plaintiff owns and uses to
22
“identify the IP addresses used by individuals infringing Plaintiff’s movies via the
23
BitTorrent protocol.” Id. ¶ 40. Mr. Williamson explains the VXN Scan system in detail,
24
which involves, in part, a proprietary BitTorrent client that emulates the behavior of a
25
standard BitTorrent client by repeatedly downloading data pieces from peers within a
26
BitTorrent network that are distributing Plaintiff’s movies. Id. ¶¶ 52-55. Mr. Williamson
27
states that other components of VXN Scan retrieve and store identical copies of every
28
network packet that is sent and received by the proprietary BitTorrent client, which
4
21cv1726-BAS-LL
1
includes the IP address, date and time of the network transaction, the port number and
2
BitTorrent client used to accomplish the network transaction. Id. ¶¶ 57-66. It also includes
3
the “Info Hash” associated with the infringing computer file, which reflects the metadata
4
of the underlying .torrent file being shared without authorization. Id. ¶ 54. Mr. Williamson
5
further explains that VXN Scan also extracts infringing transaction data from each packet
6
capture (“PCAP”), connects with Maxmind geolocation database to determine the ISP that
7
assigned a particular IP address as well as the city and state the IP address traces to, and
8
summarizes the extracted infringing transaction data in a tabular format. Id. ¶¶ 74-81.
9
Plaintiff also provides the declaration of Patrick Paige, a computer forensics expert
10
retained by Plaintiff to analyze and retain forensic evidence captured by its VXN Scan
11
system. ECF No. 4-2, Declaration of Patrick Paige (“Paige Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-9, 12-13. Mr.
12
Paige states that he reviewed a PCAP from Plaintiff containing information related to a
13
transaction that occurred on September 10, 2020 involving IP address 45.16.231.149. Id. ¶
14
16. Mr. Paige attests that in reviewing the PCAP, he was able to confirm that the PCAP is
15
evidence of a recorded transaction with 45.16.231.149 on September 14, 2021 and it
16
correlates to a movie owned by Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 18-19.
17
Next, Plaintiff provides a declaration from Emilie Kennedy, Plaintiff’s in-house
18
general counsel, in which Ms. Kennedy states that Plaintiff inputted IP address
19
45.16.231.149 into Maxmind’s Geolocation Database prior to filing its complaint and prior
20
to filing the instant motion, and both times, IP address 45.16.231.149 traced to a location
21
in San Diego, California.1 ECF No. 4-2, Declaration of Emilie Kennedy (“Kennedy
22
Decl.”), ¶¶ 6-7.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Williamson stated that the VXN Scan system connects with the Maxmind database
automatically to add the ISP that assigned the IP address, as well as the city and state it
traces to, to a tabular output of infringing transaction data. Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 74-79. The
VXN Scan system thus appears to trace the IP address to a city and state at or close to the
time of infringement.
1
5
21cv1726-BAS-LL
1
Finally, Plaintiff provides a declaration from Susan Stalzer, an employee of Plaintiff
2
who reviews the content of its motion pictures and who was tasked with reviewing contents
3
of the infringing files identified in Exhibit A to the complaint and comparing them to
4
Plaintiff’s original works to confirm they were identical, strikingly similar or substantially
5
similar. ECF No. 4-2, Declaration of Susan Stalzer, (“Stalzer Decl.”), ¶¶ 3, 7-11. Ms.
6
Stalzer also states she used “American Registry for Internet Numbers (‘ARIN’) to confirm
7
that the ISP AT&T U-verse did own Defendant’s IP address at the time of the
8
infringements, and hence has the relevant information to identify Doe Defendant.” Id. ¶ 12.
9
The dates of the alleged infringing activity in Exhibit A range from July 7, 2017 through
10
June 15, 2021. ECF No 1-2.
11
Because Plaintiff has provided the Court with the unique IP address and the dates
12
and times of connection plus the methodology for obtaining them, the name of the ISP
13
and/or cable operator that provided internet access for the user of the identified IP address,
14
and used Maxmind geolocation technology to trace the IP address to this District at or close
15
to the time of the infringement and prior to filing the complaint and this motion, the Court
16
finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that Doe Defendant with IP address
17
45.16.231.149 likely resolves to a real person or entity with a physical address in this
18
District. See Criminal Prods., Inc. v. Doe-72.192.163.220, No. 16-CV-2589 WQH (JLB),
19
2016 WL 6822186, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2016); 808 Holdings, LLC, 2012 WL
20
12884688, at *4.
21
B.
Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant
22
Second, Plaintiff must describe all prior attempts it has made to identify the Doe
23
defendant in a good faith effort to locate and serve the Doe defendant. See Columbia Ins.
24
Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. Plaintiff states that it “diligently attempted to correlate Defendant’s
25
IP address to Defendant by searching for Defendant’s IP address” on various internet
26
search tools; by reviewing sources of authority such as legislative reports and informational
27
technology guides for other means of identification; and by consulting with computer
28
investigators and cyber security experts. ECF No. 4-1 at 14. Plaintiff states that despite
6
21cv1726-BAS-LL
1
these efforts, it is unable to obtain the identity of the alleged infringer because although
2
publicly available data enables Plaintiff to identify the ISP, city, and state associated with
3
an IP address, it does not allow Plaintiff to obtain the name of the subscriber. Id. Plaintiff
4
further states that Defendant’s IP address is “assigned to Defendant by his or her [ISP],
5
which is the only party with the information necessary to identify Defendant by correlating
6
the IP address with John Doe’s identity.” Id. at 7. Based on the above, the Court finds that
7
Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and locate the Doe defendant.
8
C.
Whether Plaintiff Can Withstand a Motion to Dismiss
9
“[P]laintiff must make some showing that an act giving rise to civil liability actually
10
occurred and that the [pre-service] discovery is aimed at revealing specific identifying
11
features of the person or entity who committed that act.” Columbia Ins. Co. v.
12
seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 580 (N.D. Cal. 1999). “[A] plaintiff who claims copyright
13
infringement must show: (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) that the defendant
14
violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.” Ellison v.
15
Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “To prove a claim of
16
direct copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show that he owns the copyright and that
17
the defendant himself violated one or more of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the
18
Copyright Act.” Id. (citation omitted).
19
Plaintiff states that it is the exclusive rights holder of the copyrighted works at issue
20
and that they are registered with the United States Copyright Office. See ECF No. 4-1 at
21
16; Compl. at ¶¶ 1-3, 31-33; ECF No. 1-2 (Exhibit A); Williamson Decl. ¶ 13; Stalzer Decl.
22
¶¶ 7-10. Plaintiff alleges Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted works by
23
downloading, copying, and distributing Plaintiff’s works using the BitTorrent file
24
distribution network. See ECF No. 4-1 at 16; Compl. at ¶ 4; ECF No. 1-2. Plaintiff further
25
alleges that it did not authorize, permit, or consent to Defendant’s copying or distributing
26
its works. ECF No. 4-1 at 16; Compl. at ¶¶ 44, 51. Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged the
27
prima facie elements of direct copyright infringement and could withstand a motion to
28
dismiss. See Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1076; Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579-80.
7
21cv1726-BAS-LL
1
IV.
2
Once Plaintiff learns the subscriber’s identity, it cannot rely on a bare allegation that
3
he or she is the registered subscriber of an IP address associated with infringing activity to
4
state a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement. Cobbler Nev.,
5
LLC v. Gonzales, 901 F.3d 1142, 1144 (9th Cir. 2018); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
6
70.95.181.51, No. 19-CV-73-WQH-WVG, 2019 WL 777416, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21,
7
2019). However, at this point in the litigation, Plaintiff has made an adequate showing of
8
the need to subpoena Defendant’s ISP. See Glacier Films (USA), Inc. v. Turchin, 896 F.3d
9
1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2018) (observing that the district court’s case management order
10
permitting “limited discovery from an Internet Service Provider to establish a potential
11
infringer’s identity” was part of a “practical solution” to manage a large number of peer-
12
to-peer copyright infringement cases); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 2:18-cv-02637-
13
MCE-CKD, 2019 WL 935390, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC
14
v. Doe 70.95.181.51, 2019 WL 777416 at *3. Thus, finding good cause, the Court
15
GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for expedited discovery and ORDERS the following:
16
1.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff may serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
17
45 on AT&T U-verse that seeks only the true name and address of the subscriber assigned
18
IP address 45.16.231.149 during the time period of the allegedly infringing conduct
19
described in Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff shall not subpoena additional information.
20
21
22
2.
Plaintiff may only use the disclosed information for the purpose of protecting
its rights in pursuing this litigation.
3.
Within fourteen calendar days after service of the subpoena, AT&T U-verse
23
shall notify the subscriber that his or her identifying information has been subpoenaed by
24
Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have thirty calendar
25
days from the date of such notice to challenge the disclosure by filing an appropriate
26
pleading with this Court contesting the subpoena.
27
28
4.
If AT&T U-verse wishes to move to quash the subpoena, it shall do so before
the return date of the subpoena. The return date of the subpoena must allow for at least
8
21cv1726-BAS-LL
1
forty-five days from service to production. If a motion to quash or other customer challenge
2
is brought, AT&T U-verse shall preserve the information sought by Plaintiff in the
3
subpoena pending resolution of such motion or challenge.
4
5.
Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with any subpoena obtained and
5
served pursuant to this Order to AT&T U-verse. AT&T U-verse, in turn, must provide a
6
copy of this Order along with the required notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought
7
pursuant to this Order.
8
6.
Once Plaintiff learns the identity of the subscriber(s), Plaintiff shall provide a
9
copy of this Order to that person or those persons when Plaintiff first makes contact with
10
the subscriber regarding this case. At that same time, Plaintiff shall also provide the
11
subscriber(s) a copy of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales,
12
901 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2018). Once both have been provided to the subscriber(s), counsel
13
for Plaintiff shall immediately file a declaration that confirms these have been provided to
14
the subscriber.
15
7.
Plaintiff and AT&T U-verse shall henceforth refer to the subscriber as
16
“John/Jane Doe” and shall redact and omit from all future filings all information that
17
identifies the subscriber personally. Such identifying information includes the subscriber’s
18
name and address, unless and until the subscriber becomes a defendant in the above-
19
captioned case. Plaintiff and AT&T U-verse shall refer to the subscriber generically in any
20
filings and attach—under seal—a separate exhibit that includes the subscriber’s identifying
21
information.2
22
8.
The subscriber may initially proceed anonymously as “John/Jane Doe” until
23
such time that there is sufficient proof before the Court that the subscriber is connected
24
with the alleged infringement.
25
26
27
28
Before filing any document under seal, the parties shall follow and abide by applicable
law, including Civil Local Rule 79.2, Section 2.j. of the Electronic Case Filing
Administrative Policies and Procedures, and chambers rules.
2
9
21cv1726-BAS-LL
1
9.
Plaintiff may not engage in any settlement discussions with the subscriber
2
unless and until the subscriber has been served with the Complaint and the documents set
3
forth in paragraph (6) above.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2021
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
21cv1726-BAS-LL
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?