Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02902/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02902-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

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

ERIC GOTTESMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARLOS SANTANA et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

SERVE A THIRD PARTY 

SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE 

26(f) CONFERENCE 

[ECF No. 5]

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Serve a Third 

Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. (ECF No. 5.) For the reasons set forth 

below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is the owner of the copyrights to a number of works of visual art. (ECF No. 

5-1 at 3; ECF No. 1 at 6–8.) Plaintiff asserts that “[n]umerous infringements of [his] 

copyrighted works of art appear at the domain names: ‘beltoutlet.com’ and 

‘rockabilia.com.’” (ECF No. 5-1 at 3.) 

On November 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against several defendants, 

including “DOE #1 dba www.beltoutlet.com” and “DOE #4 c/o Domains By Proxy dba 

www.rockabilia.com.” (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges direct copyright infringement 

Case 3:16-cv-02902-JLS-JLB Document 32 Filed 01/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

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

against Defendants DOE #1 and DOE #4. (See id. at 26–32; 36–76.) Plaintiff asserts in 

his Complaint that Defendants DOE #1 and DOE #4 “recopied, redistributed or 

republished” Plaintiff’s copyrighted works without Plaintiff’s consent and “knew or should 

have known of the infringements on the domains, websites, and products sold through their 

respective online operations over which they exercised control.” (See id. at 26–32.) 

Plaintiff asserts that “[b]ecause the owners, operators, supervisors, and managers of 

[www.beltoutlet.com] and [www.rockabilia.com] used the Internet to commit these 

infringements, and in registering these domain names selected privacy settings concealing 

their identities and contact information as the registrants, administrators, and technical 

operators of same, Plaintiff has no ability to identify the actual defendants by name.” (ECF 

No. 5-1 at 3.) Therefore, Plaintiff “seeks leave of Court to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on 

the ISP for each of the above domain names.” (Id. at 4.)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Generally, discovery is not permitted absent 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.3d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 

1980)). Requests to conduct discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference are granted upon 

a showing of good cause by the moving party, which may be found “where the need for 

expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the 

prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 

273, 275–76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “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 in the Ninth Circuit apply a three-factor test for determining whether 

good cause exists to allow for expedited discovery to identify Doe defendants. See

Case 3:16-cv-02902-JLS-JLB Document 32 Filed 01/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

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 578–80. “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 

(citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642). 

III. DISCUSSION

For the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff must first identify Defendant with 

enough specificity to enable the Court to determine Defendant is a real person or entity 

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

at 578. Plaintiff has not met this burden. Plaintiff’s Motion provides no information that 

supports that Defendants DOE #1 and DOE #4 would be subject to this Court’s jurisdiction. 

In fact, the information contained in Plaintiff’s Motion supports that this Court likely does 

not have jurisdiction over these Defendants. Exhibit 1 to Defendant’s Motion states that 

the IP address assigned to DOE #1 (www.beltoutlet.com) is located in Ottawa, Canada

(ECF No. 5-2), and Exhibit 2 to Defendant’s Motion states that the IP address assigned to 

DOE #4 (www.rockabilia.com) is located in Ontario, Canada (ECF No. 5-3). Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s Motion contains no evidentiary support showing that Defendants DOE #1 and 

DOE #4 are subject to this Court’s jurisdiction, and on this basis alone, the instant Motion 

must fail.

///

Case 3:16-cv-02902-JLS-JLB Document 32 Filed 01/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB)

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

In addition, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has taken all reasonable steps to 

identify and serve process on Defendants DOE #1 and DOE #4. Unlike in the cases that 

Plaintiff cites to in his Motion, Plaintiff has at his disposal more than just an IP address to

attempt to locate the Defendants. He has their domain names. While Plaintiff argues that 

“[u]nlike phone numbers or license plates, there are no publicly-available databases or 

‘yellow pages’ that can identify an individual by a [sic] IP address or its domain name”

(ECF No. 5-1 at 7), the Court disagrees. Available to Plaintiff are online databases 

maintained by the Better Business Bureau and the Secretaries of State for the states in

which Defendants DOE #1 and DOE #4 are registered to do business. Such databases can 

provide Plaintiff with the information necessary to serve process on Defendants DOE #1 

and DOE #4. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reason set forth above, Plaintiff has not shown that good cause exists to allow 

for expedited discovery to identify Defendants DOE #1 and DOE #4. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(f)

Conference (ECF No. 5) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02902-JLS-JLB Document 32 Filed 01/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4