Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06246/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06246-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, Inc.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

SCOTT PAHNKE, et al., 

 Defendants.

1:03-CV-06246 OWW SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

UNOPPOSED PARTIAL MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 57)

I. INTRODUCTION

This is one of many civil anti-piracy cases brought by

DIRECTV, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) in this district. In this case,

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant SCOTT PAHNKE intercepted DIRECTV

satellite programming in violation of the Federal Communications

Act of 1934 (“FCA”), 47 U.S.C. § 605; the Electronic

Communications Privacy Act, also known as the Wiretap Act, 18

U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 (“Wiretap Act”); and California common law. 

Defendant, appearing pro se, answered the complaint and

filed several other motions during the early stages of this

litigation, including a successful motion to dismiss one of the

counts. However, for the past several months, Pahnke has, after

being given opportunities to do so, failed to respond to any

communications from Plaintiff’s counsel, failed to appear for

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 23
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

2

several scheduling conferences, and failed to make initial

disclosures or respond to any discovery requests. The district

court sanctioned Defendant for this conduct by “precluding him

from using any evidence to respond to any dispositive motion or

at trial that he should have provided as part of his initial

disclosures.” (Doc. 52.) Despite affording Defendant two

opportunities to defend the case, Mr. Pahnke appears to have

abandoned any defense of the case and has failed to communicate

with Plaintiff’s counsel or the court. 

 On October 11, 2005, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. 

(Doc. 57.) Defendant has filed no opposition or statement of

non-opposition, nor has he filed any other responsive documents. 

Efforts to locate Mr. Pahnke have been unsuccessful. 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

DIRECTV is a direct broadcast satellite television service

that offers programming to residential and business customers on

a subscription and pay-per-view basis only. (Whalen Decl. ¶ 5.)

DIRECTV encrypts its satellite transmissions to prevent

unauthorized viewing of its programming. In order to receive and

view DIRECTV programming, each customer must establish an account

with DIRECTV and obtain DIRECTV satellite hardware (including a

small satellite dish, a DIRECTV integrated receiver/decoder

(“IRD”), and a DIRECTV Access Card). (Id.)

A number of entities and individuals manufacture and sell

illegal devices that are capable of overcoming DIRECTV’s

encryption technology and security measures (so called “Pirate

Access Devices”). (Id. at ¶12.) On May 25, 2001, a raid was

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 23
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

3

executed at the shipping facility used by several major sources

of Pirate Access Devices, including White Viper Technologies

(“White Viper”). Sales records obtained during and subsequent to

those raids revealed that Defendant purchased five (5) illegal

Pirate Access Devices from White Viper: one (1) programmer

primarily designed to illegally modify DIRECTV Access Cards

called a “Viper Smart Card Reader/Writer”; two (2) programmers

primarily designed to illegally modify DIRECTV Access Cards,

called “Viper Reader/Writers”; and two (2) circuit board devices,

called “Viper Super Unloopers” from White Viper. (Id. ¶¶ 25 &

26; Exh. “A” to the Whalen Decl.).

The “Viper Smart Card Reader/Writer” and “Viper

Reader/Writers” are designed, marketed, and used to program valid

DIRECTV Access Cards for the sole purpose of obtaining access to

DIRECTV Satellite Programming without paying DIRECTV. For

example, the programmer may be used (i) to “clone” Access Cards,

enabling an unactivated Access Card to decrypt the same

programming as a particular authorized (or activated) Access

Card; or (ii) to program Access Cards to receive all DIRECTV

programming, including pay-per-view events, without payment to

DIRECTV. (Whalen Decl. ¶28).

The “Viper Super Unloopers” purchased by Defendant are also

used to gain unauthorized access to DIRECTV satellite programming

without payment to DIRECTV. Specifically, an “unlooper” is

designed to restore illegally modified DIRECTV access cards that

have been disabled by misuse or by DIRECTV’s electronic security

measures commonly referred to as Electronic Counter Measures or

“ECMs.” (Id. at ¶27.) DIRECTV sends ECM by satellite to disable

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 23
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

DIRECTV access cards that are being used illegally to receive

DIRECTV programming without authorization. Once these cards are

disabled or “looped,” they no longer allow free viewing of

DIRECTV programming, unless another electronic device is used to

“unloop” the card to restore its (illegal) functionality. 

(Whalen Decl. ¶ 27).

Defendant admitted purchasing and using each of the subject

devices. (Osaki Decl. ¶¶ 4 & 5; Exh. “C”.) Moreover, Defendant

possessed the necessary DIRECTV equipment to intercept its

satellite signal without authorization by or payment to DIRECTV. 

Specifically, on or about March 11, 2000, Defendant purchased

DIRECTV satellite equipment. This equipment was activated on or

about March 30, 2000. (Whalen Decl. ¶30; Exh. “B”; Osaki Decl.

¶¶4 and 5(h); Exh. “C”.)

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 12, 2003, DIRECTV filed a complaint against

Defendant Pahnke and three other individuals, alleging that each

of the defendants purchased “Pirate Access Devices” capable of

decrypting DIRECTV’s encrypted satellite television programming

and used the devices to receive DIRECTV’s programming without

authorization, in violation of several federal anti-piracy

statutes. (Doc. 1.)

Pahnke answered on February 24, 2004, Doc. 13, and appeared

for a scheduling conference on March 19, 2004. (See Doc. 19.) 

At that conference, the district court noted that DIRECTV may

have misjoined Defendants “who have no relation to each other

factually or legally.” The district court then issued an order

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 4 of 23
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

to show cause why “DIRECTV, Inc., and its [prior] attorneys

should not be sanctioned for misjoining parties, after having

been ordered not to do so in other districts of the United

States.” (Id. at 2.) DIRECTV responded to the order. (Docs. 20

& 21, filed Apr. 2, 2004.) Pahnke also filed a reply concerning

the order to show cause. (Doc. 22, filed Apr. 13, 2004.) On May

7, 2004, the district court dismissed the claims against

Defendants Santos and Vasquez, subject to re-filing, on the

grounds that they had been misjoined. (Doc. 25.) The district

court also ordered prior counsel for DIRECTV to show cause why

she should not be sanctioned for lack of candor and misciting

legal authority to the court. (Id.)

DIRECTV responded to this second order to show cause on June

18, 2004. On August 18, 2004, the district court found there had

been no violation and declined to impose sanctions against

DIRECTV or its prior counsel. 

Defendant Pahnke then moved to dismiss Count III of the

complaint on the grounds that no private cause of action is

available for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2512, a criminal

statute. (Doc. 31, filed Aug. 31, 2004.) DIRECTV filed a notice

of non-opposition, (Doc. 33, filed Sept. 8, 2004), and Count III

was dismissed against Defendant Pahnke, (Doc. 36, filed Sept.,

22). 

Then, Defendant Pahnke stopped participating in this

litigation. Plaintiff’s new counsel attempted to contact

Defendant on November 22, 2004 “to request Defendant’s input and

cooperation to prepare and file a Joint Scheduling Report.” (See

Doc 46, Shah Decl., Ex. A.) Pahnke did not respond to the

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 5 of 23
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

6

letter, and failed to appear at the December 3, 2004 scheduling

conference. (See Doc. 41 and Shah Decl. at ¶4.) The court set a

scheduling conference date. Defendant Pahnke again failed to

appear at the rescheduled conference date. (See Doc. 42, filed

Jan. 5, 2005.) The district court again continued the scheduling

conference, on the condition that Defendant first serve initial

disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a),

on or before February 5, 2005. (Doc. 43, filed Jan. 7, 2005.) 

DIRECTV mailed the Scheduling Conference Order to Defendant at

his work and residential addresses. (Shah Decl. ¶6, Exh. D.) 

In reference to Defendant’s failure to file his initial

disclosures and to participate in the status conference, the

district court authorized DIRECTV to “take such steps as it deems

necessary and appropriate.” (Doc. 43 at 2.) On March 28, 2005,

Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the imposition of Rule 37

sanctions for Defendant Pahnke’s “unjustified and continuous

failure to comply with his discovery and case management

obligations.” (Doc. 46.) The district court issued an

evidentiary sanction under Rule 37 prohibiting Defendant from

introducing evidence in any proceeding in this case, regarding

witnesses, documents, or information that Defendant should have

included in his initial disclosures. (Doc. 52.) The district

court also ordered Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the

amount of $4,438.00 for attorney’s fees incurred by DIRECTV to

pursue the motion for sanctions. (Id.) Plaintiff moved for

summary judgment on October 11, 2005. (Doc. 57.) 

//

//

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 6 of 23
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

7

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Even in an

unopposed motion for summary judgment, the moving party

nevertheless bears the burden of showing it is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. 

V. DISCUSSION

A. Defendant’s Failure to Respond to Plaintiff’s Request for

Admission.

On August 5, 2005, Plaintiff served requests for admission

upon Defendant. (Osaki Decl. ¶4.) His response was due

September 7, 2005. As of December 1, 2005, Defendant had not

filed any response. Absent any response or other objection from

Defendant, the matters asserted are therefore deemed admitted

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a). See also Hadley v.

United States, 45 F.3d 1345 (9th Cir. 1995). 

B. Federal Communications Act Claim.

Section 605(a) of the FCA, which prohibits the interception

of electronic communications under certain circumstances,

provides in pertinent part that 

No person having received any intercepted radio

communication...knowing that such communication was

intercepted, shall...use such communication (or any

information therein contained) for his own benefit or

for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. 

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 7 of 23
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

8

Even though the Act refers only to “radio communications,” the

prohibition applies to the interception of satellite television

transmissions. See National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Eliadas,

Inc., 253 F.3d 900 (6th Cir. 2001). 

To establish a violation of this provision, Plaintiff must

establish (a) that Defendant intercepted a satellite

communication; (b) knowing that such communication was

intercepted; and (c) used the communication for his own benefit

or for the benefit of another. A violation of the Act can be

inferred from the purchase of piracy equipment. Community

Television Systems, Inc. v. Caruso, 284 F.3d 430, 432 (2nd Cir.

2002) (purchase and installation of descrambling equipment in

defendants home creates “at least a rebuttable presumption that

[defendant] is liable.”). In this case, Defendant purchased

several Pirate Access Devices designed to assist in the

unauthorized reception of DIRECTV satellite television

programming. Under Caruso, Defendant’s purchase of these devices

creates a presumption of liability that has not been rebutted. 

Moreover, by failing to respond to Defendant’s request for

admissions, Plaintiff has admitted the following relevant facts

that further support liability. 

(1) Defendant received DIRECTV’s satellite transmissions of

television programming without authorization from

DIRECTV or payment to DIRECTV. (RFA ## 4 & 6.)

(2) Defendant assisted other persons in receiving DIRECTV’s

satellite transmissions of television programming

without authorization from DIRECTV or payment to

DIRECTV. (RFA ## 5 & 7.)

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 8 of 23
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

9

(3) Defendant knew or should have known that receiving, or

assisting others in receiving, DIRECTV programming

without authorization from DIRECTV or payment to

DIRECTV was prohibited. (RFA ## 8-11.)

(4) On or about January 19, 2001, Defendant placed an order

for certain products from White Viper, and that the

order was to be paid for by Defendant and shipped to

Defendant. (RFA ## 12-15.)

(5) The January 19, 2001 order consisted of one Viper Smart

Card Reader/Writer; two Viper Reader/Writers; and two

Viper Super Unloopers. (RFA ## 16-18.) 

(6) The abovementioned items are Unauthorized Access

Devices. (RFA ## 19-21.)

(7) Defendant paid for and received the above-mentioned

Unauthorized Access Devices. (RFA ## 23 & 24.) 

(8) Defendant obtained the Unauthorized Access Devices with

the intent to use them to facilitate the unauthorized

interception of DIRECTV’s encrypted satellite signal. 

(RFA ## 26.) 

(9) Defendant used or attempted to use the Unauthorized

Access Devices to facilitate the unauthorized

interception of DIRECTV’s encrypted satellite signal,

and was successful in doing so. (RFA ## 27-31.)

(10) Defendant knew or should have known that the

Unauthorized Access Devices were primarily designed to

be of assistance in the unauthorized interception of

DIRECTV programming. (RFA #32.) 

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 9 of 23
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

1 The number of violations is discussed below in the

context of damages. 

10

(11) The Unauthorized Access Devices are primarily of

assistance in the in the unauthorized interception of

DIRECTV programming, and that the use of such equipment

is prohibited. (RFA #33-36.)

The record establishes that Defendant intercepted satellite

programming without authorization, knowing that the programming

was unlawfully intercepted, and used the programming for his own

benefit. DIRECTV is entitled to summary judgment for liability

on its claim that Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 605(a).1

C. Wiretap Act Claim.

The Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(a), makes it unlawful for

any person to “intentionally intercept[], endeavor[] to

intercept, or procure[] any other person to intercept or endeavor

to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication.” The

interception of satellite television signals is covered by the

Wiretap Act. United States v. Lande, 968 F.2d 907 (9th Cir.

1992).

Section 2520 of the Wiretap Act provides a private right of

action for “any person whose...electronic communication is

intercepted ...or intentionally used in violation of [18 U.S.C.

§§ 2510-2521]” against the person who intercepted, disclosed, or

intentionally used the electronic communication. 18 U.S.C.

§ 2520. 

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 10 of 23
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

2 It does not appear that the Ninth Circuit or any

district court within this circuit has addressed this issue. 

11

Plaintiff points to a number of district court cases

addressing the question of whether the private right of action

created by § 2520 applies to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)

(making unlawful the interception of electronic communications).

The vast majority of these cases held that the private right of

action created by § 2520 does apply to conduct that violates 

§ 2511.2 See e.g. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hosey, 289 F. Supp. 2d 1259

(D. Kan. 2003); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Childers, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1287

(M.D. Ala. 2003); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Cardona, 275 F. Supp. 2d 1357

(M.D. Fla. 2003).

One case, DIRECTV v. DeCroce, 332 F. Supp. 2d 715 (D. N.J.

2004) held that no private right of action exists for a violation

of § 2511. But DeCroce’s status as an outlier has been noted and

its reasoning questioned. See DIRECTV, INC. v. Hart, 366 F.

Supp. 2d 315, 320 (E.D.N.C. 2004). In fact, § 2520(c)(1), the

provision creating the private right of action, provides specific

parameters for damages where the “conduct in violation [] is the

private viewing of a private satellite video communication that

is not scrambled or encrypted....” 18 U.S.C. 2520(c)(1). It is

therefore reasonable to assume that Congress intended sub-section

2520(c)(2), which applies to “any other action under this

section” and provides for greater damages, to apply to the

private viewing of satellite video communications that are not

scrambled or encrypted. 

Liability under § 2011 requires proof that Defendant

intentionally intercepted an electronic communication, that

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 11 of 23
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

12

information was obtained from the intercepted communication, and

that defendant knew or should have known that interception was

illegal. See Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527 (5th Cir. 1994). In

this case, Defendant purchased and used the Pirate Access Devices

made by Viper with the intent to intercept DIRECTV’s otherwise

scrambled satellite signal. These devices were designed,

marketed, and used to permit the illegal programming of valid

DIRECTV Access Cards and the unloopers are primarily useful only

for restoring functionality to illegally modified DIRECTV Access

Cards that have been disabled by an ECM. (Whalen Decl. ¶ 27). 

Accordingly, Defendant intentionally intercepted DIRECTV’s

electronic communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment finding defendant liable

on the wiretapping claim is GRANTED. 

D. Conversion.

The Fourth Cause of Action alleges that Defendant converted

Plaintiff’s property in violation of California common law. 

(Compl. at ¶¶27-30.) Conversion is defined as any act of

dominion wrongfully exerted over another’s personal property in

denial of or inconsistent with his or her rights therein. Zaslow

v. Kroenert, 29 Cal. 2d 541, 549 (1946); Weiss v. Marcus, 51 Cal.

App. 3d 590, 599 (1975). In order to establish a claim for

conversion, the plaintiff must show (a) the right to possession

of the personal property, (b) conversion by wrongful act or

disposition of the property, and (c) damages. See G.S. Rasmussen

& Assoc. v. Kalitta Flying Service, 958 F.2d 896, 906 (9th

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 12 of 23
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

13

Cir.1992); Franklin v. Municipal Court, 26 Cal. App. 3d 884, 901 (1972).

Whether DIRECTV’s programming constitutes “personal

property” protected by the common law tort of conversion is an

important question left unaddressed by Plaintiff’s briefs. 

Conversion is generally applied to tangible property. However, 

courts have relaxed this requirement. For example, in A & M

Records, Inc. v. Heilman, 75 Cal. App 3d 554 (1978), the court

found that a claim for conversion may exist where defendant sold

records duplicated from recordings manufactured and owned by

plaintiff. The A & M Records court reasoned that the recorded

performances were plaintiff’s “intangible personal property” and

that the “misappropriation and sale of [such] intangible property

of another without authority from the owner is conversion.” Id.;

see also Kalitta Flying Service, 958 F.2d at 906-07 (wrongful

disposition of intangible property right in federal regulatory

permit may constitute conversion). Applying these principles, a

district court in the Northern District of California found that

exclusive rights to distribute proprietary cable programming

satisfied the first element of conversion. Don King

Productions/Kingvision v. Lovato, 911 F. Supp 419 (N.D. Cal.

1995). 

Here, Plaintiff possesses a right to distribute programming

via satellite broadcast, thereby satisfying the first element of

conversion. Defendant has admitted to intentionally intercepting

those broadcasts without permission. This undoubtedly

constitutes a wrongful act. Plaintiff has also established that

it suffered damages, the extent of which is discussed in greater

detail below. 

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 13 of 23
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

3 Plaintiff suggests that a court may choose between the

two statutes, but offers no authority for this proposition that

is directly on point. The only cited case on election of

remedies, Cablevision of S. Conn., Ltd. P’ship v. Smith, 141 F.

Supp. 2d 277, 285 (D. Conn. 2001), concerned a defendant who was

found liable under both 47 U.S.C. 605 and 47 U.S.C. 533 (a

provision parallel to § 605, making it unlawful to intercept

cable television communications). Plaintiff has not cited any

cases concerning the interplay between § 605 and Wiretap Act

damages.

14

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its conversion

claim is GRANTED. 

E. Damages.

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant is liable under

two separate provisions which provide for statutory damages: 

47 U.S.C. § 605 and the Wiretap Act. He is also liable for

common-law conversion. Plaintiff has requested statutory damages

under § 605 in the amount of $50,000. In the alternative,

Plaintiff requests statutory damages in the amount of $50,000

under the Wiretap Act.3 Finally, if the court is not inclined to

grant $50,000 in statutory damages under either statute,

Plaintiff requests a hearing to determine the extent of damages

due under its state law conversion claim. 

1. Damages for Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a).

Pursuant 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B), any person aggrieved by a

violation of § 605 party may recover an award of statutory

damages for each violation in a sum of not less than $1,000 or

more than $10,000, as the court considers just. 47 U.S.C. 

§ 605(e)(3)(B). 

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 14 of 23
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 The record indicates that Defendant only owned one

DIRECTV satellite and one DIRECTV access card. Defendant did

admit, by way of failing to respond to discovery, that he

assisted others in intercepting DIRECTV programming, but DIRECTV

has produced no independent evidence that Defendant actually did

15

Plaintiffs suggest that Defendant committed five separate

violations here, one for each Pirate Access Device he purchased

and used. In support of this assertion, Defendants point to

Community Television Systems, 284 F.3d at 435, which dealt with

the use of descrambling devices by residential customers of a

cable system. In Community Television, the Second Circuit

reasoned that, although “a violation might be thought to occur

every time a person ‘receives’ TV images [] and ‘uses’ such

images ‘for his own benefit’ by enjoying a telecast,” this would

impose liability upon “household guests, children, and babysitters.” Rather, the court concluded that “a violation occurs

each time a device is purchased and installed.” Id. 

However, it is not entirely clear that the facts of the

instant case allow for a straightforward application of the

Community Television standard. The reasoning of Community

Television suggests that it is the act of installing a

descrambling system that constitutes a single violation, implying

that the defendants in that case installed one piece of equipment

that was sufficient to descramble the system. Here, Defendant

utilized several devices to intercept the DIRECTV broadcast. It 

is not clear, however, whether each of the five devices purchased

by Defendant would be sufficient on its own, or whether two or

more devices must be applied in concert to achieve the unlawful

goal.4 At a bare minimum, Defendant possessed the equipment

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 15 of 23
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 assist others.

16

necessary to perform one unlawful act of interception. He has

admitted successfully putting these devices to use. (See RFA 27-

31.) DIRECTV also elicited evidence, in the form of an

admission, that Defendant successfully assisted others in the act

of unlawful interception. But, DIRECTV produces no evidence

establishing how many other persons he assisted, or for how long

(RFA #7). Moreover, whereas DIRECTV produced evidence that

Defendant possessed the DIRECTV equipment necessary to intercept

transmissions for his own use (the first violation), DIRECTV

produces no documentary or physical evidence, apart from the

admission, that others were actually assisted by Defendant. 

Accordingly, only one violation has been conclusively established

on this record. 

 DIRECTV requests the maximum award of $10,000 per

violation. In support of this request, DIRECTV submits the

impacts of Defendant’s conduct. First, DIRECTV points out that

the nature of the devices purchased by Defendant can be used

continuously, over a substantial period of time. DIRECTV also

argues that piracy harms legitimate DIRECTV subscribers, who

ultimately share some of the financial burden imposed by

individuals who pirate DIRECTV. (Whalen Decl. ¶¶ 8-22, 27 and

28). Finally, DIRECTV submits that satellite piracy “costs

DIRECTV millions of dollars per year in lost revenues, which

consequently affects the State of California, DIRECTV’s state of

incorporation and principal place of business, which loses

significant tax revenues as a result of this lost income.” (Id.) 

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 16 of 23
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

17

Other courts have awarded the maximum penalty ($10,000 per

violation) under such circumstances. See e.g. Community

Television Systems, Inc. v. Caruso, 134 F. Supp. 2d 455, 461-62

(D. Conn. 2000), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F.3d 430 (2d Cir.

2002) (awarding maximum amount of damages under § 605 of $10,000

for each violation); see also DIRECTV, Inc. v. Bloniarz, 336 F.

Supp. 2d 723, 726-27 (W.D. Mich. 2004)(same under Wiretap Act);

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hedger, 322 F. Supp. 2d 879, 883 (W.D. Mich.

2004) (rejecting cases awarding minimal damages under § 605 to

DIRECTV and holding that the significant expense DIRECTV incurs

and resources it employs to combat piracy is another aspect of

DIRECTV’s damages beyond the subscription and pay-per-view fees

that is appropriately reflected in an award of the maximum

statutory damages amount). The maximum statutory penalty of

$10,000 is appropriate here. This award is more than sufficient

to compensate Plaintiff.

2. Damages Under the Wiretap Act.

In the alternative, should the district court decline to

award damages to DIRECTV, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B),

in the requested amount of $50,000, DIRECTV requests an award of

statutory damages in that same amount pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2520(c)(2). 

Section 2520(c)(2) provides that the Court may assess

damages of whichever is the greater of 

(a) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the

plaintiff and any profits made by the

violator as a result of the violation; or

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 17 of 23
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

18

(b) statutory damages of whichever is greater of

$100 a day for each day of violation or

$10,000.

DIRECTV again contends that each Pirate Access Device

purchased and used by Defendant constitutes a separate violation

of the Wiretap Act. DIRECTV therefore seeks statutory damages of

$10,000 per Pirate Access Device purchased and used by Defendant

in violation of § 2511.

In order to determine the appropriate damages award under 

§ 2520(a)(2) the court may examine the actual damages incurred by

DIRECTV as a result of Defendants’ conduct. 

3. DIRECTV’s Actual Damages.

As discussed above, Defendant purchased and successfully used

five Pirate Access Devices (3 reader/writers and 2 unloopers), the

primary use of which is to pirate DIRECTV’s satellite programming.

There are generally no other legitimate commercial or private uses

for such devices. (Whalen Decl. ¶¶ 27-28). The evidence also shows

that Defendant purchased DIRECTV satellite equipment and activated

DIRECTV Account No. 011841577 on or about March 30, 2000. (Whalen

Decl. ¶ 30; Exh. “B”.). Defendant maintained that account until

July 8, 2001, at which time his account was disabled. (Whalen Decl.

¶ 30). 

DIRECTV maintains that “[b]y possessing the DIRECTV

satellite equipment and modifying a DIRECTV Access Card using the

Pirate Access Devices, an individual using one modified Access

Card has access to over a million dollars worth of programming

services annually.” (Whalen Decl. ¶¶19-22). This figure is based

upon the total value of all programming, if one was able to view

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 18 of 23
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 DIRECTV also asserts that, because there is no DIRECTV

hardware or subscription costs associated with viewing pirated

programming, it is more likely that the user of a Pirate Access

Device would make significantly greater use of DIRECTV’s

proprietary programming than would the honest subscriber who pays

for each channel he uses. However, logic could just as easily

support the opposite conclusion. If an individual pays for

premium services, one would assume that he or she would feel

compelled to watch the programming more than someone who pays

absolutely nothing for those services. While it is reasonable to

assume that a pirate would watch a more expensive range of

programming than would a basic subscription holder, DIRECTV

presents no evidence suggesting that the pirate would access more

valuable programming than that which is available to a premium

programming subscriber.

19

every broadcast on every channel, throughout the day, including

viewing individual pay-per-view movies more than once per day. 

DIRECTV offers an alternative estimate of the potential value of

pirated programming. If a viewer accessed all viewable

programming and movies only once, DIRECTV estimates that the

value of such programming would be well over $150,000 annually. 

(Whalen Decl., ¶ 20). Plaintiff offers no authority, however,

suggesting that either of these expansive views of actual damages

is appropriate.

Plaintiffs do present a third, more reasonable, figure,

based upon DIRECTV’s estimation of the value of services

purchased by the average high-end DIRECTV user. At a bare

minimum, it is reasonable to infer that Defendant had access to

the full range of DIRECTV’s programming similar to that purchased

by high-end subscribers (so-called “premium programming

subscribers”). These premium programming subscribers are in the

top 10%, in terms of programming value, of subscribers to

DIRECTV. (Whalen Decl., ¶¶ 20-22).5 The average monthly bill

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 19 of 23
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

20

sent to the typical DIRECTV high-end paying customer for the year

2003 was $229.08. (Whalen Decl., ¶ 22). This included both

subscription and pay-per-view charges. (Whalen Decl., ¶ 22). 

Thus, assuming a user of a modified Access Card would view as

much programming as a typical high-end paying customer, the

annual value of programming stolen by such a user would be

$2,748.96 (12 months’ of programming at $229.08 per month) or

$7.53 per day. (Whalen Decl., ¶ 22).

Defendant first purchased a Pirate Access Device on January

19, 2001 and used the device to intercept DIRECTV’s satellite

programming starting on that date. DIRECTV suggests that the

damages resulting from Defendant’s use of the Pirate Access

Devices “may be calculated by totaling the number of days since

his January 19, 2001 purchase to April 30, 2004, which is 1197

days, and multiplying that amount by $7.53, the daily value of

programming stolen by Defendant...Accordingly, the actual damages

DIRECTV has suffered as a consequence of Defendant’s conduct is

at least $9,013.41 ($7.53 x 1197 days).” This is a reasonable

figure. 

DIRECTV points out, however, that this figure is limited to

the value of the amount of programming Defendant likely accessed. 

DIRECTV has also presented evidence of additional expenses

associated with the activity of pirates such as DEFENDANT.

“Addressing piracy is the job of several departments and many

individual employees and independent contractors, experts, and

attorneys retained by DIRECTV.” (Whalen Decl., ¶ 8). In

addition, DIRECTV has incurred extensive technical expenses to

address the piracy problem. (Whalen Decl. ¶¶ 10-11). 

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 20 of 23
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

21

Although DIRECTV presents general information concerning the

overhead expenses it incurs fighting piracy, it does not offer a

total figure or any breakdown attempting to ascribe a portion of

these costs to any individual pirate, such as Defendant. 

The record evidence is sufficient to establish actual

damages in the amount of $9,013.41. This is less than the

statutory minimum of $10,000. Accordingly, the statutory minimum

of $10,000 per violation. However, see supra note 3, Plaintiff

concedes that the court may award damages under the Wiretap Act

only as an alternative to damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605. The

total award will be limited to $10,000 under § 605. At oral

argument the court discussed a $20,000 award. On further

reflection, a $10,000 damages award will do justice in the case. 

4. Damages for the State Law Violations.

California common law does not provide for statutory damages

for DIRECTV’s Fourth Claim for Relief for conversion. As the

Court is not granting DIRECTV’s request for statutory damages in

the amount of $50,000 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B) or 18

U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2), DIRECTV respectfully requests that the Court

schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate damages for

DIRECTV’s common law claim of conversion. The requested damages

of $50,000 are cumulative and excessive. DIRECTV’s request for a

hearing is DENIED. 

//

//

//

//

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 21 of 23
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

22

F. Attorneys’ Fees And Costs.

DIRECTV also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to §

2520(b) of the Wiretap Act, which provides: 

In an action under this section, appropriate relief

includes a reasonable attorney’s fees and other

litigation costs reasonably incurred.

 

18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3). In support of its fee request, Plaintiff

submits the declaration counsel, Keli N. Osaki, Esq. Attached to

Ms. Osaki’s declaration are redacted billing statements,

reflecting more than $4,500 billed for work related to this case. 

Ms. Osaki declares that she has “personally reviewed the invoices

[] and [has] determined that DIRECTV incurred $3,740.50 in fees

pursuing this motion for summary judgment.” (Osaki Decl., at

¶7.) Plaintiff does not request reimbursement for time spent in

this case prior to the issuance of this Court’s May 24, 2005

Order granting DIRECTV’s Motion for Sanctions and Request for

Attorneys’ Fees against Defendant Pahnke. (Osaki Decl., ¶ 7). 

Plaintiff correctly asserts that the amount of recoverable

costs will be established in accordance with Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 54 and applicable Local Rules after judgment.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment

on its claims that Defendant violated (a) 47 U.S.C. § 605 and (b)

the Wiretap Act, and that defendant is liable under California

Law for converting Plaintiffs property. 

Plaintiff is entitled to $10,000 in damages pursuant to 47

U.S.C. § 605 under the Wiretap Act, for a total damages award of

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 22 of 23
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

23

$10,000. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover $3,740.50 in

attorneys fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3). 

Plaintiff shall submit a form of judgment consistent with

this decision within five (5) days of service of this order. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2005.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

_________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-06246-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/16/05 Page 23 of 23