LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 8

ORDER granting plaintiff's 5 Motion to Expedite Discovery by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

)
) CASE NO. C17-782 RSM
)
)
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY
)
)
)
)
)

9

LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
DOE 1, et al.,

14

Defendants.
15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

17
18

Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement claims against four unknown Doe Defendants

19

who allegedly used “peer to peer” or BitTorrent file “swapping” networks to illegally obtain

20

and distribute the copyrighted motion picture London Has Fallen. Dkt. #1 at ¶¶ 1, 10-35. It

21

now seeks permission to take limited, expedited discovery from various internet service

22

providers (“ISP”) in order to identify and name the Doe Defendants so it can complete service
23
24

of process and proceed with litigation.

Dkt. #5.

As discussed below, Plaintiff has

25

demonstrated that: (1) the Doe Defendants are real people and/or entities that may be sued in

26

federal court; (2) it has unsuccessfully attempted to identify the Doe Defendants prior to filing

27

this motion; (3) its claims against the Doe Defendants would likely survive a motion to dismiss;
28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY - 1

1

and (4) there is a reasonable likelihood that service of the proposed subpoenas will lead to

2

information identifying the Doe Defendants. As a result, the Court finds good cause exists to

3

allow Plaintiff to engage in expedited, preliminary discovery.

4

II.

BACKGROUND1

5

Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the production of the motion picture known as and
6
7

entitled “London Has Fallen” for theatrical exhibition, home entertainment and other forms of

8

distribution. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 5. Plaintiff is the owner of the exclusive rights under copyright in the

9

United States in London Has Fallen. London Has Fallen has been registered with the United

10

States Copyright Office, effective March 14, 2016, and assigned Registration No. PA 1-982-

11

831. Id. at ¶ 6 and Ex. A.
12
13

Plaintiff alleges each Doe Defendant copied and distributed Plaintiff’s copyrighted

14

motion picture London Has Fallen. The true names of Defendants are unknown to Plaintiff at

15

this time. However, each Defendant is known to Plaintiff by the Internet Protocol (“IP”)

16

address assigned by an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) and the date and at the time at which
17
18

the infringing activity of each Defendant was observed. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 10. Through geolocation,

19

the IP address used by each Defendant has been traced to the Western District of Washington.

20

Dkt. #6 at ¶ 20; Dkt. #1-1 at 5. Each IP address has also been observed and associated with

21

significant infringing activity and associated with the exchange of other titles on peer-to-peer

22

networks. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 11. The volume, titles and persistent observed activity associated with
23
24

each Defendant’s IP address also indicate each Defendant is not a transitory or occasional

25

guest, but is either the primary subscriber of the IP address or someone who resides with the

26

subscriber and/or is an authorized user of the IP address. Id. The volume of the activity

27
28

1

The following background is taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Declaration of Daniel Arheidt filed in
support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery. Dkts. ## 1 and 6.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY - 2

1

associated with each Defendant’s IP address further indicates that anyone using or observing

2

activity on the IP address would likely be aware of the conduct of Defendant. Also, the volume

3

and titles of the activity associated with each Defendant’s IP address indicate each Defendant is

4

not a child, but an adult. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 11.

5

Plaintiff alleges Defendants are each participants in a peer-to-peer (“P2P”) network
6
7

using the BitTorrent protocol.

Id. at ¶ 12.

The BitTorrent protocol makes even small

8

computers with low bandwidth capable of participating in large data transfers across a P2P

9

network. To begin an exchange, the initial file-provider intentionally elects to share a file with

10

a torrent network. This initial file is called a seed. Other users (“peers”) connect to the

11

network and connect to the seed file to download. As additional peers request the same file
12
13

each additional user becomes a part of the network from where the file can be downloaded.

14

However, unlike a traditional peer-to-peer network, each new file downloader is receiving a

15

different piece of the data from users who have already downloaded the file that together

16

comprises the whole. This piecemeal system with multiple pieces of data coming from peer
17
18

members is usually referred to as a “swarm.” The effect of this technology makes every

19

downloader also an uploader of the illegally transferred file(s). This means that every “node”

20

or peer user who has a copy of the infringing copyrighted material on a torrent network can

21

also be a source of download, and thus distributor for that infringing file. Id.

22

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants’ actions are part of a common design, intention
23
24

and purpose to hide behind the apparent anonymity provided by the Internet and the BitTorrent

25

technology to download pieces of the copyrighted motion picture in a manner that, but for the

26

investigative technology used by Plaintiff, would be untraceable, leaving the Plaintiff without

27

the ability to enforce its copyright rights. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 14. By participating in the “swarm” to

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY - 3

1

download Plaintiff’s copyrighted motion picture, the Defendants agreed with one another to use

2

the Internet and BitTorrent technology to engage in violation of federal statute to accomplish

3

and unlawful objective. Id.

4

Plaintiff has identified each Defendant by the IP address assigned by the ISP used by

5

each Defendant and the date and time at which the infringing activity of each Defendant was
6
7

observed. Id. at ¶ 15. This is accomplished using forensic software to collect, identify and

8

record the IP addresses in use by those people that employ the BitTorrent protocol to share,

9

copy, reproduce and distribute copyrighted works.

10

The end result are evidence logs of

infringing transactions and the IP addresses of the users responsible for copying and

11

distributing the audiovisual work, here London Has Fallen. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 17. The IP addresses,
12
13

hash value, dates and times, ISP and geolocation contained in Exhibit B to the Complaint

14

correctly reflect the subscribers using the IP addresses and that they were all part of a “swarm”

15

of users that were reproducing, distributing, displaying or performing the copyrighted work.

16

Id.
17
18

Plaintiff believes that each Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiff,

19

has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to wrongfully

20

misappropriate, reproduce and distribute to the public, including by making available for

21

distribution to others, London Has Fallen. Dkt. #1 at ¶28. Plaintiff further believes that each

22

Defendant participated in a swarm and/or reproduced and/or distributed the same seed file of
23
24

London Has Fallen in digital form either directly or with each other. Plaintiff has identified

25

each Defendant by the IP address assigned to that Defendant by his or her ISP and the date and

26

time at which the infringing activity of each Defendant was observed. Id. In addition, or in the

27

alternative, Plaintiff believes that Defendants obtained Internet access through an ISP and

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY - 4

1

permitted, facilitated and materially contributed to the extensive use of the Internet through his

2

ISP for infringing Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under The Copyright Act by others. Id. at ¶ 29.

3

Defendants, with knowledge of the infringing conduct, failed to reasonably secure, police and

4

protect the use of his Internet service against use for improper purposes such as piracy,

5

including the downloading and sharing of Plaintiff’s motion picture by others. Id. Defendants
6
7
8

had the right and ability to supervise and control the activity constituting the infringement. Id.
Plaintiff now seeks expedited discovery to identify the Defendants.

9
10

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

11

This Court may authorize early discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the
12
13

parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).

14

Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown “good cause”

15

for such early discovery. See, e.g., Yokohama Tire Crop. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202

16

F.R.D. 612, 613-14 (D. Ariz. 2001) (collecting cases and standards). When the identities of
17
18

defendants are not known before a Complaint is filed, a plaintiff “should be given an

19

opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that

20

discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other

21

grounds.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). In evaluating whether a

22

plaintiff establishes good cause to learn the identity of Doe defendants through early discovery,
23
24

courts examine whether the plaintiff (1) identifies the Doe defendant with sufficient specificity

25

that the Court can determine that the defendant is a real person who can be sued in federal

26

court, (2) recounts the steps taken to locate and identify the defendant, (3) demonstrates that the

27

action can withstand a motion to dismiss, and (4) proves that the discovery is likely to lead to

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY - 5

1
2
3
4

identifying information that will permit service of process.

Columbia Ins. Co. v.

seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
B. Plaintiff Has Shown Good Cause to Take Early Discovery
Here, Plaintiff established good cause to engage in early discovery to identify the Doe

5

Defendants. First, Plaintiff has associated the Doe Defendants with specific acts of employing
6
7

the BitTorrent protocol to share, copy, reproduce and distribute copyrighted works. Dkt. #1 at

8

¶ 17 and Dkt. #6 at ¶ 20. Plaintiff has been able to trace the alleged infringing activity to

9

individual IP addresses in this judicial District. Dkt. #6 at ¶¶ 20-21, Dkt. #1-1 at 5. Second,

10

Plaintiff has adequately described the steps it took in an effort to locate and identify the Doe

11

Defendants. See Dkt. #6. Specifically, Plaintiff utilized geolocation technology to locate the
12
13

IP addresses in this District. Dkt. #6 at ¶¶ 20-21. Third, Plaintiff has pleaded the essential

14

elements to state a claim for Copyright Infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq. Dkts. #1 at

15

¶¶ 25-35. Fourth, the information proposed to be sought through a Rule 45 subpoena appears

16

likely to lead to identifying information that will allow Plaintiff to effect service of process on
17
18
19

the Doe Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff states it will seek subscriber information associated
with the alleged infringing IP address. Dkt. #6 at ¶ 21.

20

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

21

grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct limited expedited discovery. See Semitool, Inc. v.

22

Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Therefore, the Court will
23
24
25
26
27

grant discovery limited to documents and/or information that will allow Plaintiff to determine
the identities of the Doe Defendants in order to effect service of process.
IV.

CONCLUSION

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

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY - 6

1

1. Plaintiff may immediately serve on its identified Internet Service Providers (or their

2

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

3

information to identify the Does Defendants.

4

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

5

identify all names, physical addresses, PO boxes, electronic addresses (including
6
7

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

8

are or have been associated with the alleged infringing IP addresses contained in

9

Exhibit B to the Complaint, Dkt. #1-1 at 5.

10
11

DATED this 24th day of May 2017.
12
13
14
15

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY - 7