Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03829/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03829-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\04-3829\BriefingOrder.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ERIC LUCCHESI,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 04-3829 JSW (JL)

BRIEFING ORDER

The district court (Hon. Jeffrey S. White) referred the Motion for Default Judgment

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for Report and Recommendation. This

Court hereby orders the Plaintiff to submit additional briefing on the following issues: 

General factual assertions. Plaintiff must provide admissible evidence showing that

Defendant did in fact purchase the Pirate Access Device and the date of that purchase.

18 U.S.C. § 2520. Recovery under § 2520 is governed by a two year statute of

limitations. Plaintiff asserts discovery on September 10, 2002, of Defendant’s alleged

purchase of a device designed to illegally intercept Plaintiff’s satellite broadcasting. Plaintiff

then filed its claim against Defendant September 10, 2004. Section 2520(e) provides that no

civil action may be brought later than two years after the date Plaintiff had a “reasonable

opportunity to discover the violation.” Plaintiff must provide to the Court admissible factual

Case 3:04-cv-03829-JSW Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\04-3829\BriefingOrder.wpd 2

evidence to support the assertion that the violation was discovered on September 10, 2002,

and not prior to that date. 

Plaintiff may wish to address the issue of tolling the statute of limitations. Judge Ware

extended the deadline for filing claims within the statute of limitations until August 26, 2004.

Given that Plaintiff did not file this claim prior to the August date Plaintiff may want to discuss

any other reason why the Court should extend the statute of limitations. 

47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). Plaintiff must provide to the Court evidence supporting the claim

that Defendant “programmed and reprogrammed DIRECTV Access Cards and designed

electronic systems for use in surreptitiously obtaining DIRECTV satellite programming.”

(Complaint at 5, 6). Plaintiff must also submit factual evidence to support the claim that

Defendant “engaged in the unlawful assembly and/or modification of devices primarily of

assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satellite programming.” (Motion for Default

Judgment at 6). The Court will not view Defendant’s admission by default as creating liability

absent a factual showing as to these assertions. The Court will accept, without factual support,

that Defendant removed and/or inserted a device into a valid DirecTV Receiver.

Additionally, Plaintiff should be aware that the Court plans on applying the threepronged test as laid out in DirecTV, Inc., v. Hendrix, 2005 WL 757562, *4 (N.D.Cal.);

DirecTV, Inc., v. Little, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16350, *17 (N.D.Cal.) (citing International

Cablevision, Inc. v Sykes, 75 F.3d 123, 133 (2nd Cir. 1996); Allarcom Pay Television, Ltd.

V. General Instrument Corp., 69 F.3d 381, 385-386 (9th Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff will not meet its

burden absent a showing that (1) the defendant distributed or sold equipment; (2) the

equipment primarily assisted in decrypting satellite signals; and (3) the defendant knew or had

reason to know that the equipment primarily aided the unauthorized use of such signals.

Plaintiff should describe how facts support a claim under this test. Plaintiff currently alleges

that “by removing and inserting Pirate Access Devices and/or inserting illegally programmed

Access Cards into valid DIRECTV Receivers, Defendant engaged in the unlawful assembly

and/or modification of devices primarily of assistance in the unauthorized decryption of

satellite programming.” (Complaint at 6). Even taken as true, under the three-pronged test

Case 3:04-cv-03829-JSW Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\04-3829\BriefingOrder.wpd 3

above, these facts do not state a cause of action under § 605(e)(4) because they do not

address the issue of distribution or sale of the product. 

The Court will hear any argument Plaintiff wishes to make as to why this test is

inappropriate in this situation.

Attorney Fees. Currently Plaintiff’s evidence and claim for attorney’s fees are

inconsistent. Plaintiff must submit a claim for attorney’s fees that correctly reflects which

individuals worked on the case and their hourly rates.

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with further briefing on the issues above on

or before October 5, 2005. 

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgment is continued to October 12,

2005, at 9:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2005

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03829-JSW Document 41 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 3