Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00859/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00859-0/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

Northern District of California

E-Filed 4/27/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE-73.170.32.155,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00859-HRL 

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

MOTION TO CONDUCT LIMITED 

DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 17

Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club LLC (“DBC”) holds the copyright to the movie Dallas Buyers 

Club. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. DBC sues an unknown defendant for copyright infringement that was 

allegedly committed in Palo Alto when the defendant shared copies of Dallas Buyers Club

through online file-sharing software. Dkt. No. 1 at 5-11. DBC moves the court for leave to 

conduct limited discovery—service of a subpoena on Comcast—in order to learn the name and the 

address of the Comcast subscriber whose account was allegedly used to commit copyright 

infringement. Dkt. No. 5. DBC has also filed a second motion that is substantially the same as the 

first. Dkt. No. 17.

The court, for the reasons discussed below, grants the first motion and denies as moot the 

second motion.

Discussion

Discovery ordinarily may not take place before the defendant has been served, but a 

district court has discretion to permit limited early discovery for good cause shown. E.g., Apple 

Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 5:11-cv-01846, 2011 WL 1938154 at 1 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 

2011). The Ninth Circuit has specifically prescribed how a plaintiff should justify a request to 

conduct limited early discovery for the purpose of identifying an absent defendant who allegedly 

violated the law over the internet. Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577-78 

Case 5:16-cv-00859-HRL Document 18 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

(9th Cir. 1999). A district court should review whether the plaintiff has satisfied four

requirements: (1) the plaintiff “should identify the missing party with sufficient specificity” to 

permit the court to determine that the defendant is a person or entity who can be sued in federal 

court, id. at 578; (2) the plaintiff should “identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive 

defendant” so the court can verify the plaintiff made a good-faith effort to find and serve the 

defendant, id. at 579; (3) the plaintiff “should establish to the [c]ourt’s satisfaction that” the case 

“could withstand a motion to dismiss,” id. at 579 (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642

(9th Cir. 1980)); and (4) the plaintiff’s request for discovery should “justify[] the specific 

discovery requested” and should also identify “a limited number of persons or entities” who might 

be served in order to seek information that will lead to the identification of the defendant, id. at 

580. The court’s decision should fairly balance “the need to provide injured parties with a[] forum 

in which they may seek redress for grievances” against “the legitimate and valuable right to 

participate in online forums anonymously or pseudonymously.” Id. at 578.

The court is satisfied that DBC, for good cause shown, should be permitted to subpoena 

Comcast for the name and address of the subscriber who has been assigned IP address 

73.170.32.155 by Comcast. DBC identified the missing defendant with sufficient specificity—the 

person in Palo Alto who allegedly used BitTorrent to share copies of Dallas Buyers Club and who 

accessed the internet through the Comcast account that had been assigned IP address 

73.170.32.155. Dkt. No. 1 at 3; Dkt. No. 5 at 4. DBC has listed the steps it took to investigate the 

defendant’s identity and has explained why it cannot feasibly identify the defendant without 

limited early discovery. Dkt. No. 1 at 3-5; Dkt. No. 5 at 5. DBC has also satisfied the court that

its case could withstand a motion to dismiss. A copyright infringement claimant must show it 

owns the allegedly infringed material and that an exclusive right granted to copyright holders 

under 17 U.S.C. § 106 has been infringed upon. E.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 

F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007). DBC has fairly alleged that it owns the copyright to Dallas 

Buyers Club. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. DBC has also fairly alleged that the defendant, without 

authorization, has copied and distributed that movie in violation of DBC’s exclusive rights to 

control the creation and distribution of new copies. Dkt. No. 1 at 3-5; see 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (3). 

Case 5:16-cv-00859-HRL Document 18 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

Finally, DBC specifically seeks leave to discover only the name and address of an unknown 

Comcast subscriber who is likely to either be or else know the name of the defendant, and DBC 

asks to subpoena only Comcast in order to obtain that subscriber’s name and address. Dkt. No. 5 

at 2. The undersigned is therefore persuaded that the need to provide DBC with a forum where it 

has a real opportunity to seek redress for its grievances outweighs the defendant’s legitimate 

interest in using the internet anonymously. Accord Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. DOE73.202.228.252, 5:16-cv-00858-PSG, Dkt. No. 13 at 13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2016) (granting an ex 

parte motion for leave to conduct limited discovery).

Conclusion

DBC has shown good cause to justify limited early discovery. The court therefore grants 

DBC leave to file, no later than May 4, 2016, a proposed subpoena and a proposed order that 

would approve the proposed subpoena. The proposed order should also specify that DBC will 

serve a copy of this order along with the subpoena. The court denies as moot DBC’s duplicative 

second motion. Dkt. No. 17.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/27/16

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-00859-HRL Document 18 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 3