MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. DOE
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey on 10/30/2015. (lcgmh1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01727 (JDB/GMH)
)
JOHN DOE
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the undersigned is plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a third party subpoena
prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. For the reasons herein stated, the motion is granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC, produced and owns the copyrights to certain motion
pictures involved in this action. Compl. [1] ¶ 3. Plaintiff has filed suit under the Copyright Act
of 1976 against defendant John Doe, alleging that defendant “downloaded, copied and
distributed” plaintiff’s works using the BitTorrent file-sharing network.1 Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff seeks
statutory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting further infringement of its
copyrighted works. Id. ¶ 33.
Though plaintiff has identified defendant’s IP address and Internet Service Provider
(“ISP”), defendant’s identity remains unknown. Id. ¶ 9. For this reason, plaintiff seeks leave to
serve a third party subpoena on defendant’s ISP – Comcast Communications, LLC – that would
BitTorrent is “one of the most common peer-to-peer file sharing systems used for distributing large amounts of
data, including, but not limited to, digital movie files.” Compl. ¶ 11.
1
1
require the ISP to identify defendant. Because defendant has not been named or served, no
response has been filed to plaintiff’s motion.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Ordinarily, a party “may not seek discovery from any source” before a Rule 26(f)
conference unless “authorized by . . . a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). “To determine
whether to authorize discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference in a particular case, this district
has applied a ‘good cause’ standard.” Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, Civ. No. 14-1322, 2014 WL
3973480, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2014). A plaintiff seeking the discovery of the identities of
unknown defendants “must have at least a good faith belief that such discovery will enable it to
show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant”, i.e., that the putative defendant
is either a District of Columbia resident or the alleged injury occurred within the District of
Columbia. See AF Holdings, LLC v. Does, 752 F.3d 990, 995 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Malibu Media,
LLC v. Doe, Civ. No. 15-986, 2015 WL 5173890, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 2, 2015).
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has demonstrated that good cause exists to take discovery prior to the Rule 26(f)
conference. As a preliminary matter, discovery is necessary because this suit cannot progress
without first identifying the defendant so plaintiff can effect service. See Arista Records, LLC v.
Does, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2008). Second, the plaintiff has established a good faith
basis for believing that the putative defendant is a District of Columbia resident. Using “proven
IP address geolocation technology which has consistently worked in similar cases,” plaintiff
determined that “defendant’s acts of copyright infringement occurred using an IP address traced
to a physical address located within” the District of Columbia. Compl. ¶ 5. This use of
2
geolocation service technology, which “enable[s] anyone to estimate the location of internet
users based on their IP addresses,” suffices to “provide at least some basis for determining
whether [defendant] might live in the District of Columbia.” See AF Holdings, LLC, 752 F.3d at
996; see also Nu Image, Inc. v. Does, 799 F. Supp. 2d 34, 41 (D.D.C. 2011) (holding that “the
Plaintiff has a good faith basis to believe a putative defendant may be a District of Columbia
resident if a geolocation service places his/her IP address within the District of Columbia, or
within a city located within 30 miles of the District of Columbia.”) (emphasis in original);
Malibu Media, LLC, 2015 WL 5173890, at *2 (same); West Coast Prod. Inc. v. Does, 280
F.R.D. 73, 75 (D.D.C. 2012) (same). The undersigned therefore finds that plaintiff should be
permitted to propound discovery on defendant’s ISP for the purpose of determining defendant’s
identity.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has demonstrated that
“good cause” exists to permit limited discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a third party subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) conference is
GRANTED. An appropriate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.2
Digitally signed by G. Michael Harvey
DN: cn=G. Michael Harvey, o, ou,
email=Michael_Harvey@dcd.uscourts
.gov, c=US
Date: 2015.10.30 18:24:59 -04'00'
Adobe Acrobat version: 11.0.10
Date: October 30, 2015
_____________________________
G. MICHAEL HARVEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
This Memorandum Opinion merely allows plaintiff to propound discovery requests earlier than usual. It does not,
however, address whether the subpoena will survive a motion to quash, if raised by the defendant or the ISP. See
Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 118–19 (2d Cir. 2010).
3
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?