Microsoft Corporation v. John Does 1-10

Filing 11

ORDER granting plaintiff's 9 Motion to Expedite Discovery signed 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
24.97.94.58,

14

Defendants.

)
)
) CASE NO. C17-0747RSM
)
)
) 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 24.97.94.58 to illegally activate

19

Plaintiff’s software. Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 41-53. It now seeks permission to take limited, expedited

20

discovery from Time Warner Cable, Inc. (“Time Warner”), an internet service provider
21
22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

Defendants prior to filing this motion; (3) its claims against the John Doe Defendants would
27
28

likely survive a motion to dismiss; and (4) there is a reasonable likelihood that service of the
ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

proposed subpoena on Time Warner 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.

BACKGROUND 1

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 ¶ ¶ 8-18. 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. at ¶ 19.

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. at ¶ 27. 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. at ¶ 28. 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. at ¶ 29.

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 #10.
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.” Id. at ¶ 32.

3

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

4

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

5

product key is activated. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 33. Cyberforensics allows Microsoft to analyze the
6
7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

from IP address 24.97.94.58. Id. at ¶ 6. According to publicly available data, that IP address is
12
13

presently under the control of Time Warner. 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 ¶ 7. 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. at ¶ 8. Despite its best

21

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

22

Microsoft believes Time Warner has access to the subscriber information associated with the
23
24

subject IP address from records kept in the regular course of its business. Id. at ¶ 11.

25

///

26

///

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 has established good cause to engage in early discovery to identify the

25

John Doe Defendants. First, Plaintiff has associated the John Doe Defendants with specific

26

acts of activating unauthorized software using product keys that are known to have been stolen

27

from Microsoft, and have been used more times than are authorized for the particular software.

28

ORDER
PAGE - 4

1

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

2

from 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 ¶ 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 ¶ ¶ 32-35.

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 ¶ ¶ 41-53 and Exs. 1-44. 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. Specifically, Plaintiff

15

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

16

#10 at ¶ 12.
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 Time Warner Cable, Inc. (or its associated

2

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

3

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 24.97.94.58.

8
9

DATED this 8th day of June, 2017.

10
11

A

12
13

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 6