Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.197.111.62, No. 3:2016cv02352 - Document 7 (S.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Second Ex Parte Motion To Expedite Discovery (Dkt # 6 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 11/18/2016. (mdc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOE-72.197.111.62, Defendant. Case No. 16-cv-2352 WQH (JLB) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND EX PARTE MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY [ECF No. 6] 16 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second Ex Parte Motion to Expedite 17 Discovery. (ECF No. 6.) No opposition was filed, as no defendant has been named or 18 served. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff is the registered copyright owner of the motion picture Criminal. (ECF No. 21 6-1 at 1.) Plaintiff asserts the person or entity assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) address 22 72.197.111.62 has illegally copied and distributed Criminal through his, her, or its use of 23 the online BitTorrent file distribution network. (Id.) 24 Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a Complaint against Defendant 25 “Doe–72.197.111.62” on September 19, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges a 26 single claim of copyright infringement against Defendant. (Id. at 8–9.) 27 Because Defendant used the Internet to commit the alleged infringement, Plaintiff 28 knows Defendant only by his, her, or its IP address, which Plaintiff believes was assigned 1 16-cv-2352 WQH (JLB) 1 to Defendant by the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) Cox Communications. (ECF No. 6- 2 1 at 2.) In the present Motion, Plaintiff asserts that Cox Communications has “the records 3 which tie the IP address used to infringe Plaintiff’s rights to a specific party who contracted 4 with Cox Communications for service” and that “[w]ithout this information, plaintiff 5 cannot ascertain the identity of the defendant nor pursue this lawsuit to protect its valuable 6 copyrights.” (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Cox 7 Communications to obtain the name and address associated with IP address 72.197.111.62. 8 (Id.) 9 Plaintiff filed its initial Motion for Early Discovery on September 23, 2016. (ECF 10 No. 4.) The motion was denied without prejudice on the basis that Plaintiff failed to state 11 the date(s) on which its counsel performed the geolocation of IP address 72.197.111.62 12 and to provide support regarding the probative value of its geolocation efforts in 13 determining whether the subscriber of IP address 72.197.111.62 is likely subject to the 14 personal jurisdiction of this Court. (ECF No. 5 at 4–5.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion 15 for Early Discovery on November 8, 2016. (ECF No. 6.) 16 17 II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Early Discovery 18 Discovery is generally not permitted before the parties have conferred pursuant to 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) unless authorized by court order. Fed R. Civ. P. 20 26(d)(1). “[H]owever, in rare cases, courts have made exceptions, permitting limited 21 discovery to ensue after filing of the complaint to permit the plaintiff to learn the 22 identifying facts necessary to permit service on the defendant.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. 23 Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Requests to conduct discovery 24 prior to a Rule 26(f) conference are granted upon a showing of good cause by the moving 25 party, which may be found “where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of 26 the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 27 Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275–76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “A district 28 court’s decision to grant discovery to determine jurisdictional facts is a matter of 2 16-cv-2352 WQH (JLB) 1 discretion.” Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578 (citing Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo 2 Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)). 3 District courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a three-factor test for determining whether 4 good cause exists to allow for expedited discovery to identify Doe defendants. See 5 Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578–80. “First, the plaintiff should identify the missing 6 party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real 7 person or entity who could be sued in federal court.” Id. at 578. Second, the plaintiff 8 “should identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant” to ensure that the 9 plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and serve process on the defendant. Id. at 10 579. Third, the plaintiff “should establish to the Court’s satisfaction that plaintiff’s suit 11 against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id. (citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 12 642). Further, the plaintiff “should file a request for discovery with the Court, along with 13 a statement of reasons justifying the specific discovery requested as well as identification 14 of a limited number of persons or entities on whom discovery process might be served and 15 for which there is a reasonable likelihood that the discovery process will lead to identifying 16 information about defendant that would make service of process possible.” Id. at 580 17 (citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642). 18 B. The Cable Privacy Act 19 The Cable Privacy Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing 20 personally identifiable information about subscribers without the prior written or electronic 21 consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). However, a cable operator may disclose 22 a subscriber’s personally identifiable information if the disclosure is made pursuant to a 23 court order and the cable operator provides the subscriber with notice of the order. 24 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). A cable operator is defined as “any person or group of persons 25 (A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more 26 affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or (B) who otherwise controls or 27 is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable 28 system.” 47 U.S.C. § 522(5). 3 16-cv-2352 WQH (JLB) 1 2 III. DISCUSSION A. Early Discovery 3 Plaintiff seeks an order allowing it to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Cox 4 Communications before the parties conduct a Rule 26(f) Conference in this case so that 5 Plaintiff may obtain the true name and address of Defendant. (ECF No. 6-1 at 2.) For the 6 reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 7 1. 8 For the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff must first identify Defendant with 9 enough specificity to enable the Court to determine Defendant is a real person or entity 10 who would be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. 11 at 578. This Court has previously determined that “a plaintiff identifies Doe defendants 12 with sufficient specificity by providing the unique IP addresses assigned to an individual 13 defendant on the day of the allegedly infringing conduct, and by using ‘geolocation 14 technology’ to trace the IP addresses to a physical point of origin.” 808 Holdings, LLC v. 15 Collective of December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12cv00186 MMA (RBB), 2012 WL 16 12884688, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2012) (citing Openmind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1–39, 17 No. C-11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); Pink Lotus 18 Entm’t, LLC v. Does 1–46, No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011 WL 2470986, at *6–7 (N.D. Cal. 19 June 21, 2011)). Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity 20 In cases where it is unclear whether the subject IP address is “dynamic” or “static,” 21 such as here, it matters when Plaintiff’s geolocation efforts were performed.1 In the context 22 of dynamic IP addresses, “a person using [a particular IP] address one month may not have 23 been the same person using it the next.” State v. Shields, No. CR06352303, 2007 WL 24 25 26 27 28 “Static IP addresses are addresses which remain set for a specific user. Dynamic IP addresses are randomly assigned to internet users and change frequently. Consequently, for dynamic IP addresses, a single IP address may be re-assigned to many different computers in a short period of time.” Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332, 356 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F. Supp. 2d 153, 160 (D. Mass. 2008)). 1 4 16-cv-2352 WQH (JLB) 1 1828875, at *6 (Conn. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2007). It is most likely that the user of IP address 2 72.197.111.62 is a residential user and that the IP address assigned by Cox 3 Communications is dynamic.2 Thus, if Plaintiff’s geolocation efforts were performed in 4 the temporal proximity to the offending downloads, they may be probative of the physical 5 location of the subject IP subscriber. If not, the geolocation of the subject IP address may 6 potentially be irrelevant. 7 Here, the Court concludes that the instant Motion sufficiently demonstrates that 8 Defendant is likely subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff attaches to its Motion a 9 table reflecting that the user of IP address 72.197.111.62 engaged in allegedly infringing 10 activity from May 9, 2016, through May 15, 2016. (ECF No. 6-2 at 1–2.) In addition, 11 Plaintiff attaches to its Motion the declaration of its counsel, James Davis, asserting that IP 12 address 72.197.111.62 belongs to Cox Communications and that Plaintiff employed certain 13 geolocation technology to locate that IP address within the Southern District of California. 14 (ECF No. 6-4 at ¶¶ 11–24.) Specifically, Mr. Davis declares that Plaintiff’s investigators, 15 MaverikEye UG, checks the location of infringing IP addresses against the Maxmind 16 geolocation database at “the specific time of the observed instance” of the infringing 17 activity. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares further that the Maxmind geolocation 18 service “is about 95% accurate in the U.S.” and “is used by local and federal law 19 enforcement agencies as best practice for IP Address Geolocation in order to determine 20 which locality/agency has proper jurisdiction.” (Id. at ¶¶ 18–19.) In addition, Plaintiff’s 21 counsel asserts that after he receives geolocation information from MaverikEye UG, he 22 verifies the location of an IP address by entering the address into three websites that contain 23 a function for locating IP addresses. (Id. at ¶ 22.) With respect to IP address 72.197.111.62, 24 MaverikEye UG and the three geolocation websites employed by Plaintiff’s counsel all 25 traced the IP address to San Diego County. (Id. at ¶ 23.) 26 27 “Most consumer IP addresses are ‘dynamic’ as opposed to ‘static.’” Call of the Wild Movie, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 356. 2 28 5 16-cv-2352 WQH (JLB) 1 The Court concludes that based on the timing of the IP address tracing efforts 2 employed by Plaintiff’s investigator, the documented success of the Maxmind geolocation 3 service, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts to independently verify the location information 4 provided by Plaintiff’s investigator, Plaintiff has met its evidentiary burden of showing that 5 IP address 72.197.111.62 likely resolves to a physical address located in this District. 6 2. 7 For the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff must next identify all of the steps 8 it took to locate Defendant to ensure the Court it made a good faith effort to identify and 9 serve process on Defendant. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. The Court 10 concludes that Plaintiff has met this burden. Plaintiff retained a private Internet forensic 11 investigator, MaverikEye UG, to monitor the BitTorrent file distribution network for the 12 presence of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works and to identify the IP addresses of devices that 13 are found distributing Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. (ECF No. 6-4 at ¶ 12.) Through 14 MaverikEye UG, Plaintiff has been able to identify much about the subscriber of IP address 15 72.197.111.62, such as his, her, or its ISP, general location, and software used to commit 16 the allegedly infringing acts. (Id. at ¶¶ 12–15.) Based on the above, the Court is satisfied 17 that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to locate Defendant and that Plaintiff cannot, on 18 its own, locate Defendant with any greater specificity than it already has. Accordingly, the 19 Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently satisfied the second prong of the Ninth Circuit’s “good 20 cause” test. Previous Attempts To Locate Defendant Whether Plaintiff’s Suit Can Withstand a Motion to Dismiss 21 3. 22 For the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff must next show that its suit against 23 Defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss. Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579 24 (citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642). The Court finds Plaintiff has met this burden. 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single cause of action against Defendant: copyright 26 infringement. (ECF No. 1 at 8–9.) To prove a claim of direct copyright infringement, a 27 plaintiff “must show: (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) that the defendant violated 28 the copyright owner’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.” Ellison v. Robertson, 6 16-cv-2352 WQH (JLB) 1 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) (2003)). Here, Plaintiff 2 purports to be the exclusive owner of the copyrighted work at issue. (Id. at ¶¶ 7–8; ECF 3 No. 1-4.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant, without the permission or consent 4 of [Plaintiff], copied and distributed plaintiff’s motion picture through a public BitTorrent 5 network.” (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 36.) Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has alleged the 6 prima facie elements of direct copyright infringement and its suit against Defendant would 7 likely withstand a motion to dismiss. 8 4. 9 Finally, for the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff “should file a request for 10 discovery with the Court.” Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 580 (citing Gillespie, 629 11 F.2d at 642). Although Plaintiff did not provide the Court with a proposed subpoena, 12 Plaintiff has provided the Court with sufficient information regarding its requested 13 discovery by stating in its Motion that it will seek from Cox Communications only the 14 name and address of the subscriber of IP address 72.197.111.62. 15 B. Specific Discovery Request The Cable Privacy Act 16 Cox Communications is a “cable operator” within the meaning of the Cable Privacy 17 Act, and therefore the Court must consider the requirements of the Act in granting 18 Plaintiff’s Motion. The Cable Privacy Act generally prohibits cable operators from 19 disclosing personally identifiable information regarding subscribers without the prior 20 written or electronic consent of the subscriber, but cable operators may disclose personally 21 identifiable information if the disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable 22 operator provides the subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1)–(2). 23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds good cause exists to allow Plaintiff 25 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena upon Cox Communications at this time. Accordingly, 26 Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED as follows: 27 /// 28 /// 7 16-cv-2352 WQH (JLB) 1 1. Plaintiff may serve on Cox Communications a subpoena, pursuant to and 2 compliant with the procedures of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, seeking only the 3 name and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 72.197.111.62 for the relevant 4 time period. Plaintiff shall not seek from Cox Communications any other personally 5 identifiable information about the subscriber; 6 2. Plaintiff’s subpoena to Cox Communications must provide a minimum of 45 7 calendar days’ notice before any production responsive to the subpoena shall be made to 8 Plaintiff; 9 3. 10 11 At the time Plaintiff serves its subpoena on Cox Communications, Plaintiff shall also serve on Cox Communications a copy of this Order; 4. Within 14 calendar days after service of the subpoena, Cox Communications 12 shall notify the subscriber assigned IP address 72.197.111.62 that his, her, or its identity 13 has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff and shall provide the subscriber a copy of this Order with 14 the required notice; 15 5. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have 30 calendar 16 days from the date of such notice to challenge Cox Communications’ disclosure of his, her, 17 or its name and address by filing an appropriate pleading with this Court contesting the 18 subpoena; 19 20 21 6. If Cox Communications seeks to modify or quash the subpoena, it shall do so as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3); and 7. In the event a motion to quash, modify, or otherwise challenge the subpoena 22 is brought properly before the Court, Cox Communications shall preserve the information 23 sought by the subpoena pending the resolution of any such motion. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 18, 2016 26 27 28 8 16-cv-2352 WQH (JLB)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
