Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01845/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01845-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1 

15cv01845-BEN (MDD) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

Doe-75.81.191.27, 

 Defendant.

 Case No.: 15cv01845-BEN (MDD) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR EARLY DISCOVERY 

[ECF NO. 6] 

On August 31, 2015, Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC filed a 

Supplemental Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery.1 (ECF No. 6). No 

Defendant has been named or served. For the reasons discussed below, 

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On August 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Doe, allegedly 

a subscriber of Time Warner Cable assigned IP address 75.81.191.27 

 

1 Plaintiff earlier filed an Ex Parte Motion for Discovery identifying the incorrect 

Internet Service Provider. (ECF No. 5). That motion was withdrawn. (ECF No. 7). The 

Supplemental Motion filed on August 31, 2015, is the operative motion at this time. 

Case 3:15-cv-01845-BEN-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 9
2 

15cv01845-BEN (MDD) 

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

(“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 Plaintiff’s copyrighted work 

through the Internet without Plaintiff’s permission. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 35.) 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct early discovery to learn the identity of 

the subscriber of the subject Internet Protocol (“IP”) address from the 

Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) who leased that IP address to its 

subscriber during the relevant period. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order 

permitting it to serve a third party subpoena, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, 

on Time Warner Cable requiring the ISP to supply the name and address of 

its subscriber to Plaintiff. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

 Formal discovery generally 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). “[H]owever, 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)). Requests for early or expedited discovery are 

granted upon a showing by the moving party of good cause. See Semitool, 

Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002) 

(applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff’s 

request for expedited discovery”). 

Case 3:15-cv-01845-BEN-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 9
3 

15cv01845-BEN (MDD) 

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

 “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.’” 808 Holdings, LLC v. 

Collective of December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12-cv-0186 MMA (RBB), 

2012 WL 1648838, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (quoting 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., 185 F.R.D. at 

578 (citing Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 

n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)). 

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

early discovery to identify Doe 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 plaintiff “should 

identify 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 to the 

Court’s satisfaction that plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a 

motion to dismiss.” Id. (citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642). Further “the 

plaintiff should file a request for discovery with the Court, along with a 

statement of reasons justifying the specific discovery requested as well as 

identification of a limited number of persons or entities on whom discovery 

process might be served and for which there is a reasonable likelihood that 

Case 3:15-cv-01845-BEN-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/02/15 Page 3 of 9
4 

15cv01845-BEN (MDD) 

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

the discovery process will lead to identifying information about defendant 

that would make service of process possible.” Id. at 580. 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity 

 First, Plaintiff must identify Defendant with enough specificity to 

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

would be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. 

at 578. This Court has previously determined that “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 

addresses to a physical point of origin.” 808 Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838, at 

*4 (quoting OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. C-11-3311 MEJ, 

2011 WL 4715200 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); Pink Lotus Entm’t, LLC v. Does 

1-46, No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011 WL 2470986 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)). 

 Here, with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a chart reflecting that the 

user of the subject IP address engaged in allegedly infringing activity from 

June 14 through 23, 2015; identified the ISP as Time Warner Cable; and 

located the IP address in Imperial and El Centro, California, both within 

the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 1-2). Consequently, Plaintiff 

has identified the Defendant, at this point, with sufficient specificity. See 

OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2 (concluding that plaintiff 

satisfied the first factor by identifying the defendants’ IP addresses and by 

tracing the IP addresses to a point of origin within the State of California); 

Pink Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3 (same). In addition, Plaintiff 

Case 3:15-cv-01845-BEN-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/02/15 Page 4 of 9
5 

15cv01845-BEN (MDD) 

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

has presented evidence that the identified IP address is physically located 

in this district. (See ECF No. 1-2.) 

B. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant 

 Next, Plaintiff must describe all prior steps it has taken to identify the 

defendant in a good faith effort to locate and serve him or her. See 

Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579. Plaintiff states it has been able to 

identify the ISP used by the alleged infringer, where he or she is generally 

located, and the software used to commit the alleged acts of infringement. 

(ECF No. 5-1 at 4.) Plaintiff maintains that there are no other practical 

measures available to determine the actual identity of Defendant. Thus, 

Plaintiff appears to have obtained and investigated the available data 

pertaining to the alleged infringement in a good faith effort to locate 

Defendant. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 4715200, at *3; MCGIP, 

LLC v. Does 1-149, 2011 WL 3607666, *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011); Pink 

Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3. 

C. Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss 

 “Finally, to be entitled to early discovery, [Plaintiff] must 

demonstrate that its Complaint can withstand a motion to dismiss.” 808 

Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838 at *5 (citing Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579). 

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

Granted 

 In order to establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show: (1) 

ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) that the defendant violated the 

copyright owner’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. Ellison v. 

Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004); 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). Here, 

Case 3:15-cv-01845-BEN-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/02/15 Page 5 of 9
6 

15cv01845-BEN (MDD) 

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

Plaintiff alleges it owns the registered copyright of the work that Defendant 

allegedly copied and distributed using the BitTorrent file distribution 

network. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 6.) Plaintiff also alleges it did not permit or 

consent to Defendant’s copying or distribution of its work. (Id. at ¶ 35.) It 

appears Plaintiff has stated a prima facie claim for copyright infringement 

that can withstand a motion to dismiss. 

2. Personal Jurisdiction 

 Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdictional facts. See 

Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578. Plaintiff’s motion does not discuss 

whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. However, 

Plaintiff’s Complaint claims that Defendant is located in this judicial 

district. (See ECF No. 1-2). The Complaint also alleges that Defendant’s 

acts of copyright infringement occurred using an IP address traced to a 

physical location in this district, and that Defendant is believed to reside in 

California. (ECF No. 1. at ¶ 3, 14.) 

 Therefore, at this early juncture, it appears Plaintiff has alleged 

sufficient facts to show it can likely withstand a motion to dismiss for lack 

of personal jurisdiction because Defendant’s IP address was traced to a 

location in this district. See 808 Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838 at *6-7. 

2. Venue 

 “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) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a); Lumiere v. 

Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174, 176 (1923)). “In copyright 

Case 3:15-cv-01845-BEN-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/02/15 Page 6 of 9
7 

15cv01845-BEN (MDD) 

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

infringement actions, venue is proper ‘in the district in which the defendant 

or his agent resides or may be found.’” Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & 

Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a)). 

“The Ninth Circuit interprets this statutory provision to allow venue ‘in any 

judicial district in which the defendant would be amendable to personal 

jurisdiction if the district were a separate state.’” Id.

 Plaintiff does not address venue in its motion. In the Complaint, 

however, Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because although Defendant’s 

true identity is unknown, Defendant is believed to reside (and therefore can 

be found in this district), and a substantial part of the infringing acts 

complained of occurred in this district. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 3, 13.) Defendant 

appears to have an IP address in this district. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint can likely survive a motion to dismiss. 

D. Specific Discovery Request 

Plaintiff has not provided a proposed subpoena. Plaintiff stated, 

however, that it will seek to obtain only the name and address of the 

subscriber associated with the IP address from Time Warner Cable. 

 The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause to subpoena records 

from Time Warner Cable identifying the subscriber assigned to the subject 

IP address. The subpoena to Time Warner Cable must be limited to 

documents identifying the subscriber’s name and address during the 

relevant period. That information should be sufficient for Plaintiff to be 

able to identify and serve Defendant. If Plaintiff is unable to identify and 

serve Defendant after receiving a response to the subpoena, Plaintiff may 

seek leave from the Court to pursue additional discovery. 

 

Case 3:15-cv-01845-BEN-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/02/15 Page 7 of 9
8 

15cv01845-BEN (MDD) 

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

E. Cable Privacy Act 

 Finally, the Court must consider the requirements of the Cable 

Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551. The Act generally prohibits cable operators 

from disclosing personally identifiable information regarding subscribers 

without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C. 

§ 551(c)(1). A cable operator, however, may disclose such information if the 

disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable operator provides 

the subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). The ISP 

that Plaintiff intends to subpoena in this case is a cable operator within the 

meaning of the Act. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

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

Expedited Discovery is GRANTED, as follows: 

 1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena, pursuant to and compliant with 

the procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on Time Warner Cable seeking only the 

name and address of the subscriber assigned to the subject IP address for 

the relevant time period. 

 2. The subpoena must provide at least forty-five (45) calendar days 

from service to production. Time Warner Cable may seek to quash or 

modify the subpoena as provided at Rule 45(d)(3). 

 3. Time Warner Cable shall notify its subscriber, no later than 

fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena, that his or her 

identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity 

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

date of the notice to seek a protective order, to move to quash or modify the 

subpoena or file any other responsive pleading. 

Case 3:15-cv-01845-BEN-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/02/15 Page 8 of 9
9 

15cv01845-BEN (MDD) 

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

 4. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with the subpoena upon 

Time Warner Cable. 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. 

 5. No other discovery is authorized at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 2, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-01845-BEN-MDD Document 10 Filed 09/02/15 Page 9 of 9