Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02353/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02353-2/pdf.json

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

---

1 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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 

CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

DOE - 68.7.69.57, 

 Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR EARLY DISCOVERY 

[ECF NO. 8] 

On September 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed its initial Ex Parte Motion to 

Expedite Discovery. (ECF No. 4). The Court denied without prejudice the 

initial motion on September 26, 2016, because Plaintiff failed to state when 

it conducted the geolocation search to determine that the subscriber of the 

subject Internet Protocol (“IP”) address likely was subject to the personal 

jurisdiction of this Court. (ECF No. 5 at 4-5). On September 29, 2016, 

Plaintiff filed a second Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Discovery. (ECF No. 6). 

On October 3, 2016, the second motion was denied because Plaintiff again 

failed to disclose when the asserted geolocation was performed. (ECF No. 

7). Before the Court now is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider filed on October 

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 8
2 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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

14, 2016. (ECF No. 8). Along with its motion, Plaintiff submitted a new 

declaration of counsel which states that the MaverikMonitor tool used by 

Plaintiff’s investigators obtain geolocation data for the suspected infringing 

IP address only seconds after confirming that the IP address is engaged in 

allegedly illegal activity. (ECF No. 8-1 ¶ 14). Third time is a charm. 

 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”). 

 “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 

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 8
3 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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

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 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 

 “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 

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 8
4 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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

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)). 

 In Exhibit 2 to its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the user of 

the subject IP address engaged in allegedly infringing activity involving 

Plaintiff’s copyrighted work from May 17 through May 29, 2016. (ECF No. 

1-3). In support of the instant Motion, Plaintiff now has submitted 

declarations regarding the manner in which the allegedly infringing IP 

address was identified; identifying the ISP as Cox Communications; and 

located the IP address in San Diego, California, within the Southern 

District of California. (See ECF Nos. 4-3, 6-3, 6-4 and 8-1). Critically, as 

mentioned above, the most recent Declaration of James S. Davis has 

provided the missing piece regarding when the geolocation occurred – 

assertedly within seconds of identifying the allegedly infringing IP address. 

(ECF No. 8-1 ¶ 14), 

In these cases, it is most likely that the subscriber is a residential user 

and the IP address assigned by ISP is “dynamic.”1 Consequently, it matters 

when the geolocation was performed. In the context of dynamic IP 

 

1 “Static IP addresses are addresses which remain set for a specific user. . . . 

Dynamic IP addresses are randomly assigned to internet users and change 

frequently. . . . Consequently, for dynamic IP addresses, a single IP address 

may be re-assigned to many different computers in a short period of time.” 

Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332, 356-57 (D. D.C. 

2011)(citations omitted). 

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 4 of 8
5 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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

addresses, “a person using [an IP] address one month may not have been 

the same person using it the next.” State of Connecticut v. Shields, No. 

CR06352303, 2007 WL 1828875 *6 (Conn. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2007). If 

performed in temporal proximity to the offending downloads, the 

geolocation may be probative of the physical location of the subscriber. If 

not, less so, potentially to the point of irrelevance. Here, Plaintiff has 

conducted the required geolocation close enough in time to the allegedly 

offending behavior to be probative. 

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 has presented evidence that the identified IP 

address is physically located in this district. 

B. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant 

 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 

 Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff owns the registered 

copyright of the work that Defendant allegedly copied and distributed using 

the BitTorrent file distribution network and that it did not permit or 

consent to Defendant’s copying or distribution of its work. It appears 

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 5 of 8
6 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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 has stated a prima facie claim for copyright infringement that can 

withstand a motion to dismiss. 

D. Personal Jurisdiction 

 As discussed above, Plaintiff has sufficiently established that it 

is likely that the Defendant is located within the Southern District of 

California and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Court. 

E. 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 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.

 As discussed above, Defendant is likely to be located in this 

District and the acts complained of also likely occurred here. Accordingly, 

venue appears proper in this District at this time. 

F. 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 the ISP. 

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 6 of 8
7 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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 Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause to subpoena 

records from Cox Communications identifying the subscriber assigned to 

the subject IP address at the identified times. The subpoena 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. 

G. 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 

Early 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 Cox Communications 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 

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 7 of 8
8 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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

days from service to production. Cox Communications may seek to quash or 

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

 3. Cox Communications 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. 

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

upon Cox Communications. Cox Communications, 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: October 17, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 8 of 8