Microsoft Corporation v. John Does 1-10

Filing 11

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 9 Motion to Expedite Discovery, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
Washington Corporation,

13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

15
16

JOHN DOES 1-10 using IP addresses
64.173.244.84 and 64.173.244.85,

17

Defendants.

)
) CASE NO. C17-0688RSM
)
)
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY
)
)
)
)
)
)

18

I.

19

INTRODUCTION

20

Plaintiff alleges copyright and trademark infringement claims against several unknown

21

John Doe Defendants that appear to be using IP addresses 64.173.244.84 and 64.173.244.85 to

22

illegally activate Plaintiff’s software. Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 44-57. It now seeks permission to take
23
24

limited, expedited discovery from AT&T Services, Inc. (“AT&T”), an internet service provider

25

(“ISP”), to identify and name the John Doe Defendants in this case so that it can complete

26

service of process and proceed with litigation. Dkt. #9 at 6-7. As further discussed below,

27

Plaintiff has demonstrated that: (1) the John Doe Defendants are real people and/or entities that

28

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

may be sued in federal court; (2) it has unsuccessfully attempted to identify the John Doe

2

Defendants prior to filing this motion; (3) its claims against the John Doe Defendants would

3

likely survive a motion to dismiss; and (4) there is a reasonable likelihood that service of the

4

proposed subpoena on AT&T will lead to information identifying the John Doe Defendants.

5

As a result, the Court finds that good cause exists to allow Microsoft to engage in expedited,
6
7

preliminary discovery.
II.

8
9
10

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff develops, distributes, and licenses various types of computer software,
including operating system software (such as Microsoft Windows) and productivity software

11

(such as Microsoft Office). Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 11–21. Microsoft holds registered copyrights in the
12
13

various different versions of these products, and has registered trademarks and service marks

14

associated with the products. Id. ¶ 22.

15

Microsoft has implemented a wide-range of initiatives to protect its customers and

16

combat theft of its intellectual property, including its product activation system, which involves
17
18

the activation of software through product keys. Id. ¶ 30. A Microsoft product key is a 25-

19

character alphanumeric string generated by Microsoft and provided either directly to

20

Microsoft’s customers or to Microsoft’s original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) partners.

21

Id. ¶ 31. Generally, when customers or OEMs install Microsoft software on a device, they

22

must enter the product key. Id. Then, as part of the activation process, customers and/or
23
24

OEMs voluntarily contact Microsoft’s activation servers over the Internet and transmit the

25

product keys and other technical information about their device to the servers. Id. Because

26

Microsoft software is capable of being installed on an unlimited number of devices, Microsoft

27

1

28

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 #10.

ORDER
PAGE - 2

1
2
3
4

uses the product activation process to detect piracy and protect consumers from the risk of nongenuine software. Id. ¶ 32.
Microsoft has created the Microsoft Cybercrime Center where they utilize, inter alia,
certain technology to detect software piracy, which it refers to as “cyberforensics.” Id. at ¶ 35.

5

Microsoft uses its cyberforensics to analyze product key activation data voluntarily provided by
6
7

users when they activate Microsoft software, including the IP address from which a given

8

product key is activated. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 36. Cyberforensics allows Microsoft to analyze the

9

activations of Microsoft software and identify activation patterns and characteristics that make

10

it more likely than not that the IP address associated with certain product key activations is one

11

through which unauthorized copies of Microsoft software are being activated. Dkt. #10 at ¶ ¶
12
13

2-5. Microsoft’s cyberforensics have identified a number of product key activations originating

14

from IP addresses 64.173.244.84 and 64.173.244.85.

15

available data, those IP addresses are presently under the control of AT&T. Id.

Id. at ¶ 6.

According to publicly

16

Microsoft alleges that for at least the past three years, the aforementioned IP addresses
17
18

have been used to activate hundreds of Microsoft product keys. Id. at ¶ 7. These activations

19

have characteristics that demonstrate that the John Doe Defendants are using the IP addresses

20

to activate unauthorized copies of Microsoft’s software.

21

activations constitute the unauthorized copying, distribution, and use of Microsoft software, in

Id.

Microsoft believes these

22

violation of Microsoft’s software licenses and intellectual property rights. Id. at ¶ 8. Despite
23
24

its efforts, Microsoft has been unable to positively identify the John Doe Defendants. Id. at ¶ 9.

25

Microsoft believes AT&T has access to the subscriber information associated with the IP

26

addresses from records kept in the regular course of its business. Id. at ¶ 11.

27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 3

III.

1
2
3
4

DISCUSSION

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

#10 at ¶ ¶ 6-8. Plaintiff has been able to trace the product key activations as originating from

2

two IP addresses, 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 ¶ 7. Second, Plaintiff has adequately described the steps it took in an effort to locate and

5

identify the John Doe Defendants. Dkt. #10.

Specifically, it utilized its “cyberforensics”

6
7

technology to analyze product key activation data and identified certain patterns and

8

characteristics which indicate software piracy. Dkt. #10 at ¶ ¶ 2-4 and Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 35-38.

9

Third, Plaintiff has pleaded the essential elements to state a claim for Copyright Infringement

10

under 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq., and Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Dkt. #1

11

at ¶ ¶ 44-57 and Exs. 1-51. Fourth, the information proposed to be sought through a Rule 45
12
13

subpoena appears likely to lead to identifying information that will allow Plaintiff to effect

14

service of process on the John Doe Defendants. Dkt. #10 at 11-12.

15

states it will seek subscriber information associated with the alleged infringing IP addresses.

Specifically, Plaintiff

16

Dkt. #10 at ¶ 12.
17

Taken together, the Court finds that the foregoing factors demonstrate good cause to

18
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
24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

ORDER
PAGE - 5

IV.

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS:

3

1. Plaintiff may immediately serve on AT&T Services, Inc. (or its associated

4

downstream ISPs) a Rule 45 subpoena to obtain documents and/or information to

5

identify John Does 1-10.
6
7

2. At this time, any document requests shall be limited to documents sufficient to

8

identify all names, physical addresses, PO boxes, electronic addresses (including

9

email addresses), telephone numbers, or other customer identifying information that

10

are or have been associated with the IP addresses 64.173.244.84 and 64.173.244.85.

11

DATED this 30 day of May, 2017.
12

A

13
14

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 6