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
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?