Microsoft Corporation v. John Does 1-10
Filing
16
ORDER granting plaintiff's 14 Motion to Expedite Discovery by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
9
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
Washington Corporation,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
v.
JOHN DOES 1-10 using IP address
173.10.29.66,
14
Defendants.
)
) CASE NO. C17-0286 RSM
)
)
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY
)
)
)
)
)
)
15
I.
16
INTRODUCTION
17
Plaintiff alleges copyright and trademark infringement claims against several unknown
18
John Doe Defendants that appear to be using IP address 173.10.29.66 to illegally activate
19
Plaintiff’s software. Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 44-56. It now seeks permission to take limited, expedited
20
discovery from Comcast Business Communications, LLC (“Comcast”), an internet service
21
22
provider (“ISP”), to identify and name the John Doe Defendants in this case so that it can
23
complete service of process and proceed with litigation. Dkt. #14 at 6-7. As further discussed
24
below, Plaintiff has demonstrated that: (1) the John Doe Defendants are real people and/or
25
entities that may be sued in federal court; (2) it has unsuccessfully attempted to identify the
26
John Doe Defendants prior to filing this motion; (3) its claims against the John Doe Defendants
27
28
would likely survive a motion to dismiss; and (4) there is a reasonable likelihood that service of
ORDER
PAGE - 1
1
the proposed subpoena on Comcast will lead to information identifying the John Doe
2
Defendants. As a result, the Court finds that good cause exists to allow Microsoft to engage in
3
expedited, preliminary discovery.
4
II.
BACKGROUND1
5
Plaintiff develops, distributes, and licenses various types of computer software,
6
7
including operating system software (such as Microsoft Windows) and productivity software
8
(such as Microsoft Office). Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 11–21. Microsoft holds registered copyrights in the
9
various different versions of these products, and has registered trademarks and service marks
10
associated with the products. Id. ¶ 22.
11
Microsoft has implemented a wide-range of initiatives to protect its customers and
12
13
combat theft of its intellectual property, including its product activation system, which involves
14
the activation of software through product keys. Id. ¶ 30. A Microsoft product key is a 25-
15
character alphanumeric string generated by Microsoft and provided either directly to
16
Microsoft’s customers or to Microsoft’s original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) partners.
17
18
Id. ¶ 31. Generally, when customers or OEMs install Microsoft software on a device, they
19
must enter the product key. Id. Then, as part of the activation process, customers and/or
20
OEMs voluntarily contact Microsoft’s activation servers over the Internet and transmit the
21
product keys and other technical information about their device to the servers. Id. Because
22
Microsoft software is capable of being installed on an unlimited number of devices, Microsoft
23
24
25
uses the product activation process to detect piracy and protect consumers from the risk of nongenuine software. Id. ¶ 32.
26
27
28
1
The following background is taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Declaration of
Brittany Carmichael filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery. Dkts. #1
and #15.
ORDER
PAGE - 2
Microsoft has created the Microsoft Cybercrime Center where they utilize, inter alia,
1
2
certain technology to detect software piracy, which it refers to as “cyberforensics.” Dkt. #1 at ¶
3
35.
4
Microsoft uses its cyberforensics to analyze product key activation data voluntarily
provided by users when they activate Microsoft software, including the IP address from which
5
a given product key is activated. Id. ¶ 36. Cyberforensics allows Microsoft to analyze billions
6
7
of activations of Microsoft software and identify activation patterns and characteristics that
8
make it more likely than not that the IP address associated with certain product key activations
9
is one through which unauthorized copies of Microsoft software are being activated. Dkt. #15
10
at ¶ 2.
Microsoft’s cyberforensics have identified a number of product key activations
11
originating from IP address 173.10.29.66. Id. at ¶ 4. According to publicly available data, that
12
13
IP address is presently under the control of Comcast. Id.
14
Microsoft alleges that for at least the past three years, the aforementioned IP address has
15
been used to activate hundreds of Microsoft product keys. Id. at ¶ 5. These activations have
16
characteristics that demonstrate that the John Doe Defendants are using the IP address to
17
18
activate unauthorized copies of Microsoft’s software. Id. Microsoft believes these activations
19
constitute the unauthorized copying, distribution, and use of Microsoft software, in violation of
20
Microsoft’s software licenses and intellectual property rights. Id. Despite its efforts, Microsoft
21
has been unable to positively identify the John Doe Defendants. Id. at ¶ 7. Microsoft believes
22
Comcast has access to the subscriber information associated with the IP address from records
23
24
kept in the regular course of its business. Id. at ¶ 9.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
ORDER
PAGE - 3
III.
1
2
3
4
DISUCSSION
A. Legal Standard
This Court may authorize early discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the
parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).
5
Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown “good cause”
6
7
for such early discovery. See, e.g., Yokohama Tire Crop. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202
8
F.R.D. 612, 613-14 (D. Ariz. 2001) (collecting cases and standards). When the identities of
9
defendants are not known before a Complaint is filed, a plaintiff “should be given an
10
opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that
11
discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other
12
13
grounds.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). In evaluating whether a
14
plaintiff establishes good cause to learn the identity of John Doe defendants through early
15
discovery, courts examine whether the plaintiff (1) identifies the John Doe defendant with
16
sufficient specificity that the Court can determine that the defendant is a real person who can be
17
18
sued in federal court, (2) recounts the steps taken to locate and identify the defendant, (3)
19
demonstrates that the action can withstand a motion to dismiss, and (4) proves that the
20
discovery is likely to lead to identifying information that will permit service of process.
21
Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
22
B. Plaintiff Has Shown Good Cause to Take Early Discovery
23
24
Here, Plaintiff established good cause to engage in early discovery to identify the John
25
Doe Defendants. First, Plaintiff has associated the John Doe Defendants with specific acts of
26
activating unauthorized software using product keys that are known to have been stolen from
27
Microsoft, and have been used more times than are authorized for the particular software. Dkt.
28
ORDER
PAGE - 4
1
#15 at ¶ ¶ 4-6. Plaintiff has been able to trace the product key activations as originating from
2
one IP address, and nearly all of the activations have involved voluntary communication
3
between the John Doe Defendants and Microsoft activation servers in this judicial District. Id.
4
at ¶ ¶ 4-5. Second, Plaintiff has adequately described the steps it took in an effort to locate and
5
identify the John Doe Defendants. Dkt. #15.
Specifically, it utilized its “cyberforensics”
6
7
technology to analyze “billions of activations of Microsoft software” and identified certain
8
patterns and characteristics which indicate software piracy. Id. at ¶ ¶ 2-3 and Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 35-
9
38.
10
Third, Plaintiff has pleaded the essential elements to state a claim for Copyright
Infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq., and Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. §
11
1114. Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 44-56 and Exs. 1-50. Fourth, the information proposed to be sought
12
13
through a Rule 45 subpoena appears likely to lead to identifying information that will allow
14
Plaintiff to effect service of process on the John Doe Defendants.
15
Specifically, Plaintiff states it will seek subscriber information associated with the alleged
Dkt. #14at 6-9.
16
infringing IP address. Dkt. #15 at ¶ 10.
17
18
Taken together, the Court finds that the foregoing factors demonstrate good cause to
19
grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct limited expedited discovery. See Semitool, 208
20
F.R.D. at 276.
21
information that will allow Plaintiff to determine the identities of the John Doe Defendants in
Therefore, the Court will grant discovery limited to documents and/or
22
order to effect service of process.
23
IV.
24
25
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS:
26
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 5
1
1. Plaintiff may immediately serve on Comcast Business Communications, LLC (or its
2
associated downstream ISPs) a Rule 45 subpoena to obtain documents and/or
3
information to identify John Does 1-10.
4
2. At this time, any documents requests shall be limited to documents sufficient to
5
identify all names, physical addresses, PO boxes, electronic addresses (including
6
email addresses), telephone numbers, or other customer identifying information that
7
are or have been associated with the IP address 173.10.29.66.
8
9
DATED this 27 day of March, 2017.
10
11
A
12
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 6
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?