Dish Network LLC et al v. Laundrie

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 8 MOTION for Default Judgment as to filed by Echostar Technologies LLC, Dish Network LLC, Nagrastar LLC. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 11/16/15. (km)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
and NAGRASTAR LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PATRICK LAUNDRIE,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 4:15-CV-1157

(Judge Brann)

MEMORANDUM
November 16, 2015
Plaintiffs DISH Network L.L.C. (hereinafter “DISH Network”), EchoStar Technologies
L.L.C. (hereinafter “EchoStar”), and NagraStar LLC (hereinafter “NagraStar”) (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion for default judgement against Defendant Patrick Laundrie
(hereinafter “Laundrie”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 55(b)(2). The Court has
carefully considered the submissions of Plaintiffs. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s
motion for default judgment is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Laundrie circumvented DISH Network’s security
technology and intercepted the copyrighted satellite television programming broadcast by DISH
Network without paying the required subscription fee.1 In connection with an investigation of
Francis Philip, DISH Network acquired business records belonging to Philip implicating
Laundrie as a paid subscriber to NFusion Private Server (hereinafter “NFPS”), a pirate television
service.2 According to Plaintiffs, upon subscribing to NFPS, a user is provided a passcode that

1
2

ECF No. 8-1 at 1.
Id.

1

enables access to a computer server through the use of an unauthorized receiver.3 The server then
transmits DISH Network’s proprietary control words or “keys” to the subscriber, a form of
pirating referred to as “Internet key sharing” or “IKS.”4 With these keys, a subscriber is able to
decrypt DISH Network’s satellite broadcasts without authorization.5
Despite being properly served, Laundrie has failed to respond to this action in any
fashion. Therefore, a default was entered against him on July 24, 2015.6 Plaintiffs now request
statutory damages in the amount of $10,000 together with a permanent injunction.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for entry of a default judgement
against a party that has failed to plead or otherwise defend claims asserted against it.7 It is well
settled that the decision to enter a default judgment is left primarily to the discretion of the
district court.8 “When a defendant fails to appear . . . the district court or its clerk is authorized to
enter a default judgment based solely on the fact that the default has occurred.” 9 If a party is
found in default, the well-pled allegations of the complaint are taken as true,10 as long as the
court determines that the moving party’s complaint establishes a legitimate cause of action.11
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Laundrie violated the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (hereinafter “ECPA”), which prohibits the intentional interception of any electronic

3

Id. at 2.
Id.
5
Id.
6
ECF No. 7.
7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.
8
Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180 (3rd Cir. 1984).
9
See Anchorage Assoc. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 177 n.9 (3d Cir. 1990).
10
Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing 10 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2688 (2d ed. 1983)).
11
Jimenez v. Rosenbaum-Cunningham, Inc., No. 07-1066, 2010 WL 1303449 (E.D. Pa. March 31, 2010).
4

2

communication.12 Plaintiffs request that the Court award damages and a permanent injunction
against Laundrie.
A. Damages
Section 2520 of the ECPA provides a right of action for a person whose electronic
communication is intercepted. 13 Section 2520 states that a court may award “the greater of . . .
the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff . . . or statutory damages of whichever is
the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.”14 Section 2520(c)(2) grants
courts discretion as to whether damages are awarded.15 The amount of damages, however, is not
debatable. The “plain language of the statute does not . . . authorize the Court to grant anything
other than the damages permitted by the statute.”16
The Middle District of Pennsylvania has adopted the following factors to consider in
exercising its discretion on whether to award damages pursuant to the ECPA:
(1) whether the defendant profited by his violation; (2) whether there was any evidence
that the defendant actually used his pirate access devices; (3) the extent of [plaintiff’s]
financial harm; (4) the extent of the defendant’s violation; (5) whether the defendant had
a legitimate reason for his actions; (6) whether an award of damages would serve a
legitimate purpose; and (7) whether the defendant was also subject to another judgment
based on the same conduct.17
In the case at hand, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Laundrie profited from his violation
of the ECPA by receiving DISH Network programing without paying the subscription fee.18
Accessed programming included all DISH Network channels, including premium and pay-per12

18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).
18 U.S.C. § 2520.
14
18 U.S.C. § 2520(2).
15
See DirecTV, Inc. v. Brown, 371 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2004) (“We agree with the Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits
that the decision of Congress to change the language of section 2520(c)(2) was deliberate. To use the term ‘may’ is
plain and means that an award of damages under section 2520(c)(2) is discretionary.”); see also DirecTV, Inc. v.
Chorba, No. 3:cv-03-0843, 2005 WL 3095067 at 5 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2005).
16
DISH Network L.L.C. v. DelVecchio, 831 F. Supp. 2d 595, 601 (W.D.N.Y. 2011).
17
DirecTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1123 (M.D. Ala. 2004), see also DirecTV, Inc. v. Walsh, 540 F.
Supp. 2d 553, 561 (M.D. Pa. 2008).
18
ECF No. 8-1 at 6.
13

3

view channels.19 Plaintiffs were unable to determine the exact financial figure that Laundrie
profited from his violation of the ECPA due to his failure to participate in discovery.
Plaintiffs also submitted evidence that Laundrie used his pirate access device. Plaintiffs
provided documentation indicating that Laundrie purchased subscriptions to the NFPS service
using PayPal and received passcodes for accessing the NFPS service.20 Plaintiffs also submitted
evidence that, remarkably enough, Laundrie posted various entries on a forum at the website
www.ftazeta.com indicating the he was using the NFPS service to view DISH Network
programming.21
Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s piracy actions cost monetary damages
in lost revenue and costly security system updates, in addition to damaging Plaintiffs’ reputations
and goodwill.22 They argue that no legitimate purpose exists for Laundrie’s actions.23 Plaintiffs
further claim that awarding damages will serve the purpose of compensating the Plaintiffs for
their loss and acting as a deterrent for Defendant and others not to engage in pirating DISH
Network programming.24 Lastly, Defendant has not been sued previously by Plaintiffs and,
therefore, has yet to be punished for his actions.25
Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as the Court must do, I find that Defendant
Laundrie engaged in piracy actions in violation of the ECPA. Laundrie profited from his
violation of federal law and Plaintiffs suffered monetary harm as a result of Laundrie’s actions.
The record is naturally void of any legitimate purpose for his actions, a fact which could have

19

Id.
ECF No. 8-2 at ¶ 6(a), Exhibit 1; Rogers Decl. ¶ 6(b), Exhibit 2.
21
ECF No. 8-2 at ¶ 7, Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9.
22
ECF No. 8-1 at 8.
23
Id. at 9.
24
Id.
25
Id. at 10.
20

4

been addressed in Laundrie’s answer, had one been entered. Therefore, this Court finds an award
of the statutory amount of $10,000 to be proper.
B. Permanent Injunctive Relief
In addition to damages, Section 2520 of the ECPA provides for “other equitable or
declaratory relief as may be appropriate.” To that end, Plaintiffs request a permanent injunction.
In granting a permanent injunction, a court must find that the plaintiff has met its burden in
demonstrating that “(1) it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law are
inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between
the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest
would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”26 These factors are also considered in
granting a permanent injunction in a default judgment.27
Plaintiffs argue that monetary damages are not enough to rectify their harm because in
addition to the financial harm suffered in security updates and lost revenue, piracy negatively
impacts Plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill. They further contend that the only cost to Laundrie
in granting an injunction would be to forego illegal conduct. Lastly, they argue that the public
interest is served by enjoining activities that violate federal law.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have suffered an irreparable injury and that monetary
remedies are inadequate to compensate for their injury. Furthermore, the hardship to Laundrie to
cease engaging in illegal activity is given no weight. Finally, the public interest would be served
by permanently enjoining actions that violate federal law. Therefore, a permanent injunction is
granted to prevent Laundrie from continuing to engage in the piracy of DISH Network’s
programming.

26
27

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 388 (2006).
See E.A. Sween Co. v. Deli Express of Tenafly, LLC, 19 F. Supp. 3d 560, 576 (D.N.J. 2014).

5

IV. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is
granted.
An appropriate Order follows.

BY THE COURT:
/s Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

6