ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does

Filing 9

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 3 Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Take Limited Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 10/31/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Case 2:16-cv-02384-JCM-PAL Document 3-2 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5

CHARLES C. RAINEY, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10723
[e-mail]
HAMRICK & EVANS LLP
2600 W. Olive Ave., Ste. 1020
Burbank, California 91505
+1.818.763.5292 (ph)
+1.818.763.2308 (fax)
Attorney for Plaintiff

7

DISTRICT OF N EVADA

8
9

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Nevada
corporation,
Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11

DOES 1 – 14

12

Defendants

)
) Case No.: 2:16-cv-02384
)
) ORDER GRAN TIN G PLAIN TIFF’S
) EX PARTE M OTION FOR LEAVE TO
) TAKE LIM ITED DISCOVERY PRIOR
) TO RU LE 26(f) CON FEREN CE
)
)

13

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct limited discovery

14

prior to the conference required under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

15

(“FRCP”). Docket No. 3. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

16

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used BitTorrent, an Internet peer-to-peer file

17

sharing network, to illegally reproduce and distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted work in

18

violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. See Docket No. 1 at 3-11. To date,

19

Plaintiff can only identify Defendants by the Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses they used

20

to allegedly infringe on Plaintiff’s copyright. Docket No. 3 at 2. Plaintiff represents that

21

Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) maintain logs that record the date, time, and customer

22

identity for each IP address assignment they make. Id. Plaintiff seeks leave “to serve

23

limited, immediate discovery” on the ISPs that own the IP addresses at issue in this case

24

in order to ascertain Defendants’ true identities. Id. In particular, Plaintiff requests leave

25

to serve FRCP 45 subpoenas upon Defendants’ ISPs and any related intermediary ISPs

26
27
28

that own the relevant IP addresses, prior to the FRCP 26(f) conference. See id.
“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred
as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under

1

2600 W. Olive Ave., Ste. 1020
Burbank, California 91505
+1.818.763.5292 (ph) / +1.818.763.2308 (fax)

U N ITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT

HAMRICK & EVANS LLP

6

Case 2:16-cv-02384-JCM-PAL Document 3-2 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 3

1

Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”

2

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). Courts have adopted a good cause standard to evaluate requests for

3

expedited discovery. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D.

4

Cal. 2002). In Semitool, the Court found that “[g]ood cause may be found where the need

5

for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the

6

prejudice to the responding party. Id. “[G]ood cause is frequently found in cases involving

7

claims of infringement[.]” Id.; see also Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Letyagin, 2012 WL

8

3135671, *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2012)

10

prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given opportunity through

11

discovery to identify the unknown defendant, unless it is clear that discovery would not

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.

Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti,
629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.1980)).
For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. Docket No. 3. Plaintiff
may serve Rule 45 subpoenas upon the ISPs and any related intermediary ISPs that own
the IP addresses at issue in the instant case, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. The
subpoenas will demand solely the true name, address, telephone number, e-mail address,
and Media Access Control address for the account holder to whom the relevant IP
addresses were assigned at the date(s) and time(s) that the alleged infringement activity
occurred. Plaintiff will use the information it obtains from the ISPs in response to these
subpoenas solely to prosecute the claims it has made in the instant case.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED: October 31, 2016

25
26
27
28

Respectfully submitted by.
/s/ Charles Rainey
CHARLES C. RAINEY, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10723

_________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

2600 W. Olive Ave., Ste. 1020
Burbank, California 91505
+1.818.763.5292 (ph) / +1.818.763.2308 (fax)

The Ninth Circuit has held that where the identity of the defendants is unknown

HAMRICK & EVANS LLP

9