Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00466/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00466-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

16cv466-BAS (DHB) 

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 

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC, a Texas 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DOE-70.181.160.198, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 16cv466-BAS (DHB) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX 

PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

CONDUCT A DEPOSITION BY 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS UNDER 

FRCP 31[ECF No. 10] 

 On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff, Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, filed an Ex Parte Motion for 

Leave to Conduct a Deposition by Written Questions Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 31. (ECF No. 10.) Because Defendant has not been named or served, no 

opposition or reply briefs have been filed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s 

Motion is DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On February 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Doe, a subscriber assigned 

IP address 70.181.160.198 (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges a single cause of 

action for direct copyright infringement. Plaintiff asserts that it is the registered copyright 

holder of the motion picture Dallas Buyers Club. (See ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 6.) Plaintiff 

contends Defendant used the BitTorrent file distribution network to copy and distribute 

Case 3:16-cv-00466-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

16cv466-BAS (DHB) 

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

Plaintiff’s copyrighted work through the Internet without Plaintiff’s permission. (ECF No. 

1 at ¶ 35.) On March 11, 2016, the Court permitted Plaintiff to serve a Rule 45 subpoena 

on Cox Communications to learn the identity of the subscriber assigned to Defendant’s IP 

address. (ECF No. 7.) 

 On April 28, 2016, Cox Communications provided Plaintiff the name and physical 

address of the subscriber. (ECF No. 10-1 at 4.) Thereafter, Plaintiff sent a letter to the 

subscriber, Cara Greico, requesting that she voluntarily cooperate with Plaintiff to identify 

the infringer, and inviting her to contact Plaintiff’s counsel with questions. (ECF No. 10-

5.) In response, On May 5, 2016, an individual identifying himself as the subscriber’s 

husband, Austin Morris, telephoned Plaintiff’s counsel. (ECF No. 10-8 at ¶ 2.) Mr. Morris 

requested information about how the IP address was tracked and located, and also if 

Plaintiff could provide the media access control address (MAC address) of the computer 

that was tracked. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Mr. Morris indicated he would not assist Plaintiff’s counsel 

with the investigation unless counsel provided the requested information. (Id. at ¶ 4.) 

 On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff sent a second letter to the subscriber. (ECF No. 10-6.) 

Plaintiff contends it has not received a response to the letter. 

 Therefore, Plaintiff brings the instant motion seeking permission to depose the 

subscriber by written questions under Rule 31. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff acknowledges that 

the Court has previously denied oral depositions of third parties under Rule 45. Plaintiff 

argues that Rule 31 provides is a less burdensome means for Plaintiff to solicit information 

than by use of depositions under Rule 45. 

II. ANALYSIS 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31 permits depositions of any person by written 

questions instead of by oral examination. Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(a). Based on the Rule’s title, it 

may sound like a deposition by written questions is a less burdensome way to obtain 

deposition discovery. However, once the Rule is examined, it is clear that depositions by 

written questions “entail more than mailing questions to the deponents and awaiting their 

written response.” Dasenbrook v. Enenmoh, 2015 WL 1889069, *2 (E.D. Cal. April 24, 

Case 3:16-cv-00466-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

16cv466-BAS (DHB) 

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

2015). Rule 31 requires the party taking the deposition to deliver the written questions to 

a deposition officer. Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(b). The deposition then proceeds in a manner similar 

to oral depositions. Id. (incorporating Rule 30(c), (e), and (f)). The deponent is put under 

oath, and then the deposition officer “must ask the deponent [the written] questions and 

record the answers verbatim.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(3). Following the deposition, a 

transcript is prepared in the same manner as an oral deposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(b)(2)-(3). 

 Therefore, Plaintiff’s contention that a deposition by written questions is appropriate 

here because it is a less intrusive alternative is without merit. In addition, the Court notes 

that Plaintiff’s counsel has previously abused the procedure under Rule 31. See Cobbler 

Nevada LLC v. Doe 68.8.213.203, 15cv2729-GPC (JMA), ECF No. 27 (S.D. Cal. July 5, 

2016) (denying motion to compel responses to deposition by written questions where 

counsel attempted to use Rule 31 in a manner that was functionally similar to 

interrogatories, which is improper and not permitted by the federal rules). Therefore, the 

Court declines to permit Plaintiff to pursue a deposition by written questions, which if the 

Rule were correctly followed, would require essentially the same burden on the third party 

as an oral deposition. Further, in this case, the Court notes that the subscriber’s husband 

responded to Plaintiff’s first letter and indicated a willingness to cooperate if Plaintiff 

would provide some additional information about how Plaintiff discovered the alleged 

infringement. In the Court’s opinion, the subscriber’s response was not unreasonable. 

However, it appears Plaintiff chose not to address to the subscriber’s questions, thereby 

foreclosing an available avenue of investigation. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery 

is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 15, 2016 

 _________________________ 

 DAVID H. BARTICK 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00466-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 3