Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01916/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01916-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP

address 76.93.177.163,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 16CV1916-GPC(JMA)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE

A THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA

[ECF No. 4]

Before the Court is an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Serve a Third

Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference filed by Plaintiff Malibu

Media, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons discussed below,

Plaintiff’s application is GRANTED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant John

Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.93.177.163, (“Defendant”). 

(Compl., ECF No. 1). Plaintiff purports to be the registered owner of twelve

(12) copyrighted movies which were allegedly illegally distributed by

Defendant’s IP address. Compl., ¶¶ 2-3 & Exs. A-B. The Complaint

alleges copyright infringement of each of its copyrighted movies. Id. at ¶¶

30-35. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, using IP address 76.93.177.163,

Case 3:16-cv-01916-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 7
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

infringed Plaintiff’s copyrights by copying and distributing Plaintiff’s motion

pictures through the BitTorrent file distribution network without Plaintiff’s

permission or consent. Id. Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in

infringement activity between February 9 and June 28, 2016. Id., Exs. A-B. 

Plaintiff seeks leave of court to serve a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 45 on Defendant’s internet service provider (“ISP”), Time Warner

Cable, in order to identify the subscriber and account holder assigned to

the IP address used by Defendant. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

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

parties have conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Yet, “in rare cases, courts have made exceptions,

permitting limited discovery to ensue after filing of the complaint to permit

the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts necessary to permit service on the

defendant.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577

(N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.

1980)). Courts grant these requests when the moving party shows good

cause for the early discovery. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Elec. Am., Inc., 208

F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that when the defendants’ identities are

unknown at the time the complaint is filed, courts may grant plaintiffs leave

to take early discovery to determine the defendants’ identities “unless it is

clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint

would be dismissed on other grounds.” Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642. A

district court’s decision to grant discovery to determine jurisdictional facts is

a matter of discretion. Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578.

District courts apply a three-factor test when considering motions for

2

Case 3:16-cv-01916-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 Page 2 of 7
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

early discovery to identify certain defendants. Id. at 578-80. First, the

plaintiff should “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. at 578. Second, the movant must describe

“all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant” to ensure that the

plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and serve process on the

defendant. Id. at 579. Third, the plaintiff should establish that its suit

against the defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. “[T]o

prevent abuse of this extraordinary application of the discovery process

and to ensure that the plaintiff has standing,” the plaintiff must show that

some act giving rise to liability actually occurred and that the discovery is

aimed at identifying the person who actually committed the act. Id. at 579-

80.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Identification of Missing Parties with Sufficient Specificity

First, Plaintiff must identify Defendant with enough specificity to

enable the Court to determine that the defendant is a real person or entity

who would be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Id. at 578. “[A]

plaintiff identifies Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by providing the

unique IP addresses assigned to an individual defendant on the day of the

allegedly infringing conduct, and by using “geolocation technology” to trace

the IP address to a physical point of origin. 808 Holdings, LLC v.

Collective of Dec. 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, 2012 WL 1648838, at *4 (S.D.

Cal. May 4, 2012). Here, Plaintiff identified the IP address of the computer

used by Defendant, and used geolocation technology to trace the IP

address 76.93.177.163 to San Diego, California. Compl., ¶ 5 & Exs. A-B.

Consequently, Plaintiff has identified Defendant with sufficient specificity

and has satisfied the first factor of the test for permitting early discovery.

3

Case 3:16-cv-01916-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 Page 3 of 7
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

B. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant

Next, Plaintiff must identify all previous steps taken to identify the

Doe Defendant in a good faith effort to locate and serve it. See Columbia

Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. According to Plaintiff, “Plaintiff knows

Defendant only by his or her IP address and has no way to ascertain

Defendant’s identity other than by subpoenaing the ISP.” Ex Parte Motion

at 9. “This is the case because although publicly available data allowed

Plaintiff to identify the specific ISP used by Defendant, as well as the city

associated with the IP address, it does not permit Plaintiff to ascertain the

identity of the subscriber or actual defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff

appears to have investigated and obtained the data pertaining to the

alleged infringement in a good faith effort to locate Defendant.” Id., at 15-

16, quoting Cobbler Nevada LLC v. Doe 68.8.213.203, No. 15-CV-2729-

GPC(JMA), 2015 WL 9026554, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2015).

C. Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss

Lastly, to be entitled to early discovery, Plaintiff must demonstrate

that the Complaint can withstand a motion to dismiss. See Columbia Ins.

Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579.

1. Ability to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be

Granted

Plaintiff alleges that it is the owner of the copyright for the twelve (12)

movies at issue, and that Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s copyrights by

copying and distributing Plaintiff’s movies through a public BitTorrent

network without Plaintiff’s permission or consent. Compl., ¶¶ 30-35. The

Court finds Plaintiff has alleged a prima facie case of copyright

infringement against Defendant. 

2. Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdictional facts. See

4

Case 3:16-cv-01916-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 Page 4 of 7
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

Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578. Plaintiff, using geolocation

technology, traced Defendant’s IP address to a point of origin within this

District. Compl., ¶ 5. Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to

show it can likely withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Pink Lotus Entm’t, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65614, at

*6-7.

3. Venue

Plaintiff alleges that venue in this District is proper as to Defendant

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(a). Compl., ¶ 7. “The venue of suits

for infringement of copyright is not determined by the general provision

governing suits in the federal district courts, rather by the venue provision

of the Copyright Act.” Goldberg v. Cameron, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1143

(N.D. Cal. 2007). Civil actions for copyright infringement “may be instituted

in the district in which defendant or his agent resides or may be found.” 28

U.S.C.A. § 1400(1) (West 2006). An individual “resides” for venue

purposes in the district of his domicile. James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s

Federal Practice, § 110.39[2], at 110-76 (3d ed. 2011). A defendant is

“found” for venue purposes where he is subject to personal jurisdiction. Id.

(footnote omitted); see also Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon,

606 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2010) (“This circuit interprets [28 U.S.C. §

1400(a)] to allow venue in any judicial district where, if treated as a

separate state, the defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction.”). 

Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant allegedly committed

the infringing acts complained of, and resides, in this District. Compl., ¶ 7. 

Thus, venue appears to be proper. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint can likely survive a motion to

dismiss. 

5

Case 3:16-cv-01916-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 Page 5 of 7
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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s

Application is GRANTED as follows:

1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45

upon Time Warner Cable for the sole purpose of obtaining the name and

address only of Defendant John Doe subscriber assigned IP address

76.93.177.163. Time Warner Cable shall have fourteen (14) calendar days

after service of the subpoena upon it to notify its subscriber that his/her

identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity

has been subpoenaed shall have thirty (30) calendar days from the date of

such notice to challenge the disclosure to Plaintiff by filing an appropriate

pleading with this Court contesting the subpoena. If Time Warner Cable

intends to move to quash the subpoena, it must do so prior to the return

date of the subpoena. The return date of the subpoena must allow for at

least forty-five (45) days from service to production. If a motion to quash or

other customer challenge is brought, Time Warner Cable must preserve

the information sought by Plaintiff pending resolution of the motion or

challenge.

2. The subpoena shall not seek Defendant’s telephone number,

email address, or Media Access Control (MAC) address, as this

information is not necessary for Plaintiff to identify and serve Defendant. 

3. Plaintiff may use the information disclosed pursuant to the

subpoena only in pursuing this litigation.

4. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order with any subpoena

served upon Time Warner Cable pursuant to this Order. Time Warner

Cable, in turn, must provide a copy of this Order along with the required

notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought pursuant to this Order.

//

6

Case 3:16-cv-01916-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 Page 6 of 7
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. No other discovery is authorized at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 24, 2016

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

7

Case 3:16-cv-01916-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 10/25/16 Page 7 of 7