Apex Technology Group, Inc. v. MW Media et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion for Discovery, signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

APEX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
MW MEDIA, et al.,

11

CASE NO. C17-5211 BHS
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EARLY DISCOVERY

Defendants.

12
13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Apex Technology Group, Inc.’s
(“Apex”) motion for early discovery (Dkt. 11).
Apex requests limited discovery to ascertain the identities of all owners and

16

operators of Eporner.com and Eprncdn.com, websites it alleges have infringed its

17

pornographic videos by duplicating and distributing them without prior authorization.

18

Apex has shown the defendants are real persons or entities, that it cannot identify them

19

without early discovery, and that its suit could possibly withstand a motion to dismiss.

20

See Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578–80 (N.D. Cal. 1999)

21

(setting forth a test describing when a court could permit discovery prior to a Rule 26(f)

22

conference for the purpose of identifying anonymous defendants). Apex, therefore, may

ORDER - 1

1

serve discovery demands on WhoisProxy.com, Moniker.com d/b/a Key-Systems GmbH,

2

Domains By Proxy LLC, GoDaddy.com LLC, Copyright Agent c/o Incorporate Now,

3

and PayPal Holdings Inc. for information identifying their customers—Eporner.com’s

4

and Eprncdn.com’s owners and operators. At this time, Apex may not serve discovery on

5

Internet Service Providers for IP addresses used to access the Defendants’ sites, as such

6

discovery goes beyond identifying the Defendants.

7
8
9
10

Therefore, Apex’s Motion (Dkt. #11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of September, 2017.

A

11
12

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2