Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02316/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02316-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1

2

FSL 3

4

JAN 04 2018

5

CLERK US DIS1 RiCT COURT

6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF^ALIFORNIA

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.: 3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A

THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR

TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE

13 v.

14 JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP

address 76.167.199.146, 15

Defendant. [Doc. No. 4] 16

17

Before the Court is plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to

Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. [Doc. No. 4.] Since

defendant, John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.167.199.146, has not been named

or served, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed. For the reasons discussed below,

the Court finds that plaintiffs motion must be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffhas filed a Complaint against defendant alleging a single cause ofaction for

direct copyright infringement. [Doc. No. 1 at p. 2]. Plaintiff asserts that it is the registered

copyright holder of the copyrights set forth in the “Copyright Report” attached to the

Complaint. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 1; Doc. No. 1-3 (“Copyright Report”)]. Plaintiff contends

that defendant used the BitTorrent file distribution network to copy and distribute

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
1 plaintiffs copyrighted work through the Internet without its permission. [Doc. No. 1 at p.

2 5]-

3 DISCUSSION

In the Ex Parte Motion, plaintiffseeks leave to serve limited, immediate discovery

on defendant’s Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), Time Warner Cable (Spectrum), so that

plaintiffmay learn defendant’s true identity. [Doc. No. 4-1 at p. 2]. Specifically, plaintiff

seeks an order permitting it to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Time Warner Cable to obtain

the name and address ofthe account holder assigned to defendant’s Internet Protocol (“IP”)

address. [Id.\.

Generally, discovery is not permitted without a court order before the parties have

conferred pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In

the Ninth Circuit, exceptions to requests for early discoveiy have generally been

disfavored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). However, “situations

arise, such as the present, where the identity of alleged defendants will not be known prior

to the filing of a complaint. In such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an

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

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

other grounds.” Id.

“[S]ome limiting principals should apply to the determination ofwhether discovery

to uncover the identity of a defendant is warranted.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com,

185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Such early discovery should be limited “to ensure

that this unusual procedure will only be employed in cases where the plaintiff has in good

faith exhausted traditional avenues for identifying a civil defendant pre-service” and to

“prevent use ofthis method to harass or intimidate.” Id. First, “the plaintiffshould identify

the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that

defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court.” Id. Second, the

plaintiff“should identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant” to ensure

that the plaintiffhas made a good faith effort to identify and serve process on the defendant.

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

2

3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
Id. at 579. Third, the “plaintiffshould establish to the Court’s satisfaction that plaintiffs

“Thus, plaintiff must

1

suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id.

make some showing that an act giving rise to civil liability actually occurred and that the

discovery is aimed at revealing specific identifying features ofthe person or entity who

2

3

4

committed that act.” Id. at 580.

“Lastly, the plaintiffshould file a request for discovery with the Court, along with a

statement ofreasonsjustifying the specific discovery requested as well as identification of

a limited number of persons or entities on whom discovery process might be served and

for which there is a reasonable likelihood that the discovery process will lead to identifying

information about defendant that would make service ofprocess possible.” Id.

Identification ofthe Doe Defendant with Sufficient Specificity

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 A.

“Some district courts in the Ninth Circuit have determined that a plaintiffidentifies

Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by providing the unique IP address assigned to

an individual defendant on the day of the alleged infringing conduct, and by using

‘geolocation technology’ to trace the IP address to a physical point of origin.” See, e.g.,

Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-19, 2012 WL 2152061, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 12,2012), and

cases cited therein.

In support of the Motion, plaintiff submitted several declarations in support of its

request for early discovery. Plaintiff submitted the Declaration of Tobias Fieser, who is

employed by IPP International UG (“IPP”), a forensic investigation services corporation.

[Doc. No. 4-2, Exh. B at p. 2]. According to Mr. Fieser, IPP monitors the BitTorrent file

distribution network for the presence ofplaintiffs copyrighted works. [Id.]. By reviewing

IPP’s forensic activity logs, Mr. Fieser declares that IPP’s forensic servers connected to a

device using defendant’s IP address and later “was documented distributing to IPP’s

servers multiple pieces of Strike 3’s copyrighted movies.” [Id.].

Second, the Declaration ofJohn S. Pasquale, a senior project manager with 7 River

Systems, LLC a cybersecurity firm specializing in, inter alia, the “the protection ofsecured

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
information transmitted across networks,” who has had significant experience in solving

computer crime cases, states in part as follows:

10. Based on my experience in similar cases, Defendant’s ISP Time

Warner Cable is the only entity that can correlate the IP address to its

subscriber and identify Defendant as the person assigned the IP address

76.167.199.146 during the time of the alleged infringement. Indeed, a

subpoena to an ISP is consistently used by civil plaintiffs and law

enforcement to identify a subscriber of an IP address.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

[Doc. No. 4-2, Exh. C at p. 1]. 8

Third, plaintiffs Complaint also traces the alleged offending IP address to this

district. Plaintiffstates that it used “IP address geolocation technology by Maxmind Inc.,

an industry-leading provider ofIP address intelligence and online fraud detection tools, to

determine that defendant’s IP address traced to a physical address in this District.” [Doc.

No. 1 at p. 2]. See e.g, Criminal Prods., Inc. v. Doe, 2016 WL 6822186 (S.D. Cal. Nov.

18, 2016) (“The Court concludes that based on the timing ofthe IP address tracing efforts

employed by plaintiffs investigator, the documented success ofthe Maxmind geolocation

services, and plaintiffs counsel’s efforts to independently verify the location information

provided by plaintiffs investigator, plaintiff has met its evidentiary burden [that

jurisdiction is proper]”).

Based on this evidence and information, the Court finds that plaintiff has satisfied

the “sufficient specificity” threshold. Plaintiff has provided the Court with information

about infringing activity tied to defendant’s IP address, specific date and times for such

activity, and sufficient reassurance that it seeks to sue a real person subject to the Court’s

jurisdiction.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 B. Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff has also made a showing that its Complaint against defendant could

withstand a motion to dismiss. “Under the Copyright Act of 1976 (‘the Act’) a plaintiff

may not ‘institute [ ]’ an action in federal district court ‘until registration ofthe copyright

claim has been made in accordance with this title.’ 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).” Berry v. Penguin

25

26

27

28

4

3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
Group (USA), Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 1202,1202 (W.D. Wash. 2006). The Complaint alleges

that plaintiff is the “registered owner” of the Copyrights in Suit. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 6;

Copyright Report].

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), a case can be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6). As applied herein, the Complaint correctly alleges subject

matterjurisdiction pursuant to Title 28, United Code, Sections 1331 (federal question) and

1338 (copyrights).

In order to state a viable claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must allege:

(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) a violation by the defendant ofthe copyright

owner’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072,

1076 (9th Cir. 2004); 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). Here, the Complaint alleges that plaintiffis the

owner of the Copyrights-in-Suit and that defendant’s IP address copied and distributed

plaintiffs copyrighted materials using the BitTorrent file distribution network without

plaintiffs permission or consent. [Doc. No. 1 at p. 5-6]. Thus, plaintiffhas alleged facts

that could withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), a case can be dismissed for lack of

personal jurisdiction over a defendant or for improper venue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2)&(3).

To avoid a defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(2) for lack ofpersonal

jurisdiction, a plaintiffneed only make aprimafacie showing ofjurisdiction by presenting

facts that, if true, would support a finding of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). Personal jurisdiction can be

established over a person who resides in the forum state. Brayton PurcellLLP v. Recordon

& Recordon, 361 F.Supp.2d 1135, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2005). In copyright infringement

actions, venue is proper “in the district in which the defendant... resides or may be found.”

28 U.S.C. § 1400(a).

In the Complaint, plaintiff asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the Doe

defendant because the alleged acts of infringement were traced to an IP address that is

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

5

3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
located in this State and this District. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 2]. It is further alleged that venue

is proper in this District because the alleged acts ofinfringement occurred in this District

and the defendant resides or may be found here. [Id.]. Therefore, plaintiffhas stated facts

that are likely to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction or improper venue.

Finally, the Court must consider the requirements of 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 ofthe subscriber. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). A cable operator, however, may disclose

such information ifthe disclosure is made pursuant to a court order, and the cable operator

provides the subscriber with notice ofthe order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Therefore, the

information plaintiff seeks pursuant to a subpoena falls within an exception to the

prohibition on disclosure within the Act.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Serve a

Third Party Subpoena is GRANTED, as follows:

1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena on defendant’s ISP, Time Warner Cable

(Spectrum), seeking the name and address only ofthe subscriber assigned to the IP address

identified in the Complaint for the time periods ofthe alleged infringing activity outlined

in Attachments 1 and 2 to plaintiffs Complaint.

2. The subpoena must provide a minimum offorty-five (451 days’ notice before

any production and shall be limited to one category ofdocuments identifying the particular

subscriber identified in Exhibits A-D attached to plaintiffs Motion. The requested

information shall be limited to the name and address of the subscriber during the time

period of the alleged infringing activity referenced in Doc. No. 1-2, attached to the

Complaint as Exhibit A. Time Warner Cable (Spectrum) may seek a protective order ifit

determines there is a legitimate basis for doing so.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 III

/// 28

6

3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
3. Time Warner Cable (Spectrum) shall have fourteen (14) calendar days after

service ofthe subpoena to notify the subscriber that his or her identity has been subpoenaed

by plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall then have

thirty (30) calendar days from the date ofthe notice to seek a protective order or file any

other responsive pleading.

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

served pursuant to this Order to Time Warner Cable (Spectrum). Time Warner Cable

(Spectrum), in turn, must provide a copy ofthis Order along with the required notice to the

subscriber whose identity is sought pursuantto this Order. No other discovery is authorized

at this time.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: January , 2018

13

Hon. Karen S. Crawford

United States Magistrate Judge 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7