Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02143/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02143-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2143-BEN (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR EARLY DISCOVERY

[DOC. NO. 3]

vs.

JOHN DOES 1-51,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to Rule

26(f) Conference. (Doc. No. 3) Having reviewed the motion and supporting documents, and having

considered the requirements of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551, Plaintiff’s Motion for Early Discovery

is GRANTED.

Background

On September 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging direct and contributory copyright

infringement against John Doe defendants. (Doc. No. 1). The complaint alleges that the John Doe

defendants participated in a peer-to-peer Internet network using Bit Torrent technology in order

illegally to download and share a copywrited work. As provided in the instant Motion, Plaintiff has

obtained the Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses of the John Doe defendants allegedly involved in the

infringing activity and, using publicly available search tools, has traced the IP addresses to physical

addresses within this District and has identified the Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) which leased

the involved IP addresses to subscribers. Id. 

- 1 - 11cv2143-BEN (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-02143-BEN-MDD Document 4 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On September 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion seeking permission to take early

discovery from the identified ISPs for the limited purpose of identifying the subscribers of the

identified IP addresses on the date and time in question. (Doc. No. 3). 

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) states:

“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties

have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding

exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when

authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”

In the instant case, Plaintiff may only use expedited discovery by court order. In this Circuit, the

courts must find “good cause” to determine whether to permit discovery prior to the Rule 26(f)

conference. Good cause exists where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the

administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. See, e.g., Arista Records,

LLC v. Does 1-43, 2007 WL 4538697 *1 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 

In infringement cases involving the Internet, good cause is often found by the courts where the

party seeking expedited discovery of a Doe defendant’s identity establishes the following:

1. A prima facie case of infringement;

2. That there is no other way to identify the Doe defendant; and,

3. That there is a risk that the ISP will destroy its logs prior to the Rule 26(f) conference.

See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 4104214 *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008). In UMG the court said:

“[I]n considering ‘the administration of justice,’ early discovery avoids

ongoing continuous harm to the infringed party and there is no other

way to advance the litigation. As for the defendant, there is no

prejudice where the discovery request is narrowly tailored to only seek

their identity.” (citations omitted). 

This Court has reviewed the allegations of the complaint and finds that the Plaintiff has alleged

a prima facie case of direct and contributory copyright infringement against the Doe defendants. 

- 2 - 11cv2143-BEN (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-02143-BEN-MDD Document 4 Filed 10/12/11 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff also has alleged that there is no way to identify these defendants without early discovery from

the ISPs, and that early discovery is necessary because the ISPs are not required to maintain their logs

for any set period of time and may destroy them in the ordinary course of business. 

Finally, this Court must consider the requirements of the The Cable Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C.

§551. The Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing personally identifiable information

regarding subscribers without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C. §

551(c)(1). A cable operator, however, may disclose such information if the disclosure is made

pursuant to a court order and the cable operator provides the subscriber with notice of the order. 47

U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). The ISPs that Plaintiff intends to subpoena in this case are cable operators

within the meaning of the Act. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff may obtain and serve subpoenas under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 to Cox

Communications, Roadrunner and SBC Internet Services in order solely to obtain the names and

addresses of subscribers using the IP addresses identified at pages 1-2 of Exhibit A of Plaintiff’s

Complaint at the precise dates and times identified therein. Cox Communications, Roadrunner and

SBC Internet Services shall have ten (10) calendar days after service of the subpoena upon it to notify

the subscriber that his/her identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity

has been subpoenaed shall have twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of such notice to

challenge the disclosure to the Plaintiff by filing an appropriate pleading with this court contesting the

subpoena. If no challenge is filed within this period, the affected ISP promptly shall produce the

identity of the subscriber of the appropriate IP address.

2. Plaintiff may only use information disclosed pursuant to these subpoenas to protect its

rights in pursuing this litigation.

3. If Cox Communications, Roadrunner or SBC Internet Services should choose to move

to quash the subpoena issued to them, the motion must be filed prior to the return date of the

subpoena. If such a motion is brought, the movant must preserve the information sought by Plaintiff

in the subpoena pending resolution of the motion.

- 3 - 11cv2143-BEN (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-02143-BEN-MDD Document 4 Filed 10/12/11 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Plaintiff shall provide a copy of this Order with any subpoena obtained and served

pursuant to this Order to Cox Communications, Roadrunner or SBC Internet Services. 

DATED: October 12, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 4 - 11cv2143-BEN (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-02143-BEN-MDD Document 4 Filed 10/12/11 Page 4 of 4