Screen Media Ventures, LLC v. Does 1-48

Filing 8

ORDER: It is ordered that Plaintiff may serve limited, immediate discovery on the internet service providers (ISPs) identified in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Darren M. Griffin and on any later-discovered unknown or intermediary ISPs to obtain the identity of each Doe Defendant or other identified alleged infringers by serving a Rule 45 subpoena that seeks documents that identify each Doe defendant, including the name, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and Media Access Control ad dresses for each alleged infringer. It is further ordered that any information that is disclosed to Plaintiff in response to the Rule 45 subpoenas may be used by Plaintiff solely for the purpose of protecting Plaintiffs rights under the Copyright Act. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 01/15/2014. (sr1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Screen Media Ventures, LLC,
Plaintiff,

:
:

v.

:

Case No. 2:13-cv-845

:

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Kemp

John Does 1-48,
Defendants.

:
ORDER

This matter is before the Court to consider the response to
the Court’s show cause order directing Screen Media to show cause
why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
The background of this copyright infringement action was set
forth in some detail in the Court’ previous order and will not be
repeated here.

Briefly, however, in the prior order, the Court

concluded that, based on the record before it, it was not
persuaded that Screen Media had established its standing to
pursue this copyright infringement action.

Consequently, the

Court denied Screen Media’s application for early discovery.
In response to the Court’s order, Screen Media continues to
assert that it “is in fact a legal or beneficial owner of the
exclusive right to distribute copies of the copyrighted Motion
Picture to the public.”

Further, it contends that it “has the

subdivided exclusive right to enforce the distribution rights
therein, including the exclusive right to file claims for
copyright infringement ....”
In support of its position, Screen Media has submitted the
declaration of Gino Pereira, an authorized representative of
Infected, LLC, dated October 7, 2013.

According to this 4-

paragraph declaration, Infected, LLC, has a sales agency

agreement with Screen Media for the distribution of the motion
picture.

This agreement was in place prior to the filing of the

lawsuit.

It was the understanding and intent of Infected, LLC,

that this agreement granted Screen Media the exclusive rights
Screen Media claims to possess and not merely the bare right to
sue.

Mr. Pereira states that he signed and authorized the

confirmation letter attached to the complaint as Exhibit A as a
representative of Infected, LLC.
Attached to Mr. Pereira’s affidavit is a document entitled
“Clarification Agreement.”

This agreement appears to have been

executed by Mr. Pereira, as an authorized representative of
Infected, LLC, on October 7, 2013, and by an authorized
representative of Screen Media on October 15, 2013.

According to

this agreement, Screen Media has been granted exclusive rights
held by Infected, LLC under 17 U.S.C. §106, including the
exclusive right to distribute copies of the copyrighted motion
picture “Infected.”
Based on this additional evidence, the Court is satisfied
that Screen Media has met its burden of establishing its standing
to pursue this copyright infringement action.

In light of this,

the Court can now consider whether Screen Media has otherwise
demonstrated good cause for expedited discovery under the
standard set forth in its previous order.
In Exhibit B to its complaint, Screen Media provides the IP
address assigned to each Doe defendant, the date and time of the
download at issue, the hash identifier, the ISP, and the location
of the IP address.

The Court concludes that, based on this

information, Screen Media has identified the Doe defendants with
sufficient specificity.

Further, based on the declaration of

Darren M. Griffin, a software consultant, Screen Media has
described in detail its efforts to identify the Doe
defendants.

Additionally, Screen Media has pled a copyright
-2-

infringement claim. Finally, Screen Media has demonstrated that
the information it seeks is likely to lead to information which
will allow it to identify and perfect service on the Doe
defendants.
Given Screen Media’s stated purpose in seeking this
information, there is no suggestion that the Doe defendants would
be prejudiced by allowing such limited expedited discovery.
Rather, as the Court explained in Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does
1-23, 2012 WL 1144822, *2 (D. Colo. April 4, 2012),
Much like the Arista Records defendants,
Defendants here have engaged in anonymous online
behavior, which will likely remain anonymous unless
Plaintiff is able to ascertain their identities. Thus,
Plaintiff reasonably believes that there are no
practical methods to discover Defendants' identities
without court-ordered discovery. Accordingly, because
it appears likely that Plaintiff will be thwarted in
its attempts to identify Defendants without the benefit
of formal discovery mechanisms, the court finds that
Plaintiff should be permitted to conduct expedited
discovery, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45, for the limited
purpose of discovery the identities of Defendants.
Taking all of the above into account, the Court concludes
that Screen Media has demonstrated good cause for the expedited
discovery.

Consequently, Screen Media will be entitled to serve

discovery on the internet service providers as set forth below.
For the reasons stated above, it is ordered that Plaintiff
may serve limited, immediate discovery on the internet service
providers (“ISPs”) identified in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of
Darren M. Griffin and on any later-discovered unknown or
intermediary ISPs to obtain the identity of each Doe Defendant or
other identified alleged infringers by serving a Rule 45 subpoena
that seeks documents that identify each Doe defendant, including
the name, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and
Media Access Control addresses for each alleged infringer. The
disclosure of this information is ordered pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §
-3-

1232g(b)(2)(B) where applicable to educational institutions.
It is further ordered that any information that is disclosed
to Plaintiff in response to the Rule 45 subpoenas may be used by
Plaintiff solely for the purpose of protecting Plaintiff’s rights
under the Copyright Act.
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

-4-