Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02939/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02939-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE-73.92.201.24,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02939-JCS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED

DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 6

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC (“DBC”) alleges that the unnamed Defendant (“Doe”) 

has infringed its copyright for the motion picture Dallas Buyers Club. DBC has been unable to 

determine Doe’s identity, but has ascertained Doe’s IP address (73.92.201.24) and Internet Service 

Provider (Comcast Cable). Now pending before the Court is DBC’s ex parte Motion for

Expedited Discovery (“Motion”). DBC requests an order permitting it to subpoena third party 

Comcast Cable for records that will reveal the identity of the subscriber associated with Doe’s IP 

address. The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for determination without oral argument. 

See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Good cause shown, the Motion is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Complaint

DBC filed the instant Complaint against Doe on June 1, 2016, alleging copyright 

infringement under the Copyright Act. Compl. ¶¶ 35–41. DBC also filed Exhibit 1 in which DBC 

lists the date, time, and location of the alleged acts of infringement. Dkt. 1-1. Exhibit 1 also lists 

the IP address and Internet Service Provider used in the alleged acts. In the Complaint, DBC 

alleges as follows.

DBC is the registered copyright holder for the motion picture Dallas Buyers Club (“the 

Case 3:16-cv-02939-JCS Document 11 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Northern District of California

film”). Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6. The film contains wholly original material that is copyrightable subject 

matter currently offered for sale in commerce. Id. ¶¶ 8–9.

From April 11, 2016, to May 18, 2016, Doe distributed a distinct copy of the film in at 

least 190 instances. Id. ¶¶ 12, 15–16; see also id. Ex. 1 (listing the distributions). Doe distributed 

the film, as well as many other copyrighted works, through BitTorrent’s peer-to-peer file sharing 

network. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 16–17, 30. Doe’s BitTorrent activity is consistent with a singular, 

identifiable adult who was authorized to use the IP address from which the distributions were 

made. Id. ¶¶ 17–22.

Presently, DBC only knows Doe by the IP address from which the distributions were made

(73.92.201.24, “Doe’s IP address”). Id. ¶ 12. Using geolocation technology, DBC traced the 

distributions from Doe’s IP address to the Northern District of California. Id. ¶¶ 14–15, 21. DBC 

determined that Comcast Cable was the Internet Service Provider for Doe’s IP address when the 

distributions occurred. Id. ¶ 21. Comcast Cable generally assigns a subscriber one IP address for 

extended time periods and maintains records of its IP address assignments. Id. ¶ 21–22. Because 

the Comcast Cable subscriber assigned Doe’s IP address is either Doe or a person who authorized 

Doe’s Internet access, DBC would likely be able to identify Doe upon discovering Comcast 

Cable’s records. Id. ¶ 22–23.

B. The Motion

On June 2, 2016, DBC filed the pending Motion, requesting that the Court permit DBC to 

subpoena Comcast Cable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. With the Motion, DBC filed 

the Declaration of James S. Davis, DBC’s counsel. Dkt. 6-3. Davis declared that he compiled the 

list of distributions in Exhibit 1 from data provided by DBC’s investigators, MaverickEye UG. 

Davis Decl. ¶¶ 5–6. He also declared that, using three geolocation websites,

1

he traced Doe’s IP 

address to Alameda County and confirmed Comcast Cable as the Internet Service Provider. 

Id. ¶¶ 8–9. Pursuant to his findings, Davis asserts that Comcast Cable is able to identify the 

subscriber assigned Doe’s IP address, who is either Doe or someone who can identify Doe. 

 

1 Davis used the IP address locator websites www.iplocation.net, www.ipfingerprints.com, and 

www.ip-address.org.

Case 3:16-cv-02939-JCS Document 11 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 6
3

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

Northern District of California

Id. ¶ 11.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

In the Ninth Circuit, a district court may permit a plaintiff to seek expedited discovery 

when good cause is shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1); see also Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron 

Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275–76 (N.D. Cal. 2002); G.N. Iheaku & Co. Ltd. v. Does 1-3, No. 

C 14-02069 LB, 2014 WL 2759075, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2014) (collecting authority). “Good 

cause 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., 208 F.R.D. at 275. 

“[G]ood cause is frequently found in cases involving claims of infringement . . . .” Id. District 

courts have broad discretion to fashion expedited discovery orders. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003); Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 

573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (“A district court’s decision to grant discovery to determine 

jurisdictional facts is a matter of discretion”).

When the identity of a defendant is not known before a complaint is filed, the plaintiff 

“should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendant[], unless it 

is clear that discovery would not uncover the identit[y], or that the complaint would be dismissed 

on other grounds.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). To determine 

whether there is good cause permitting expedited discovery to identify unnamed defendants, 

courts in this district consider whether:

(1) the plaintiff can identify the missing party with sufficient 

specificity such that the Court can determine that [the] defendant is a 

real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) the 

plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken to locate the elusive 

defendant; (3) the plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a 

motion to dismiss; and (4) the plaintiff has demonstrated that there is 

a reasonable likelihood of being able to identify the defendant 

through discovery such that service of process would be possible.

OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. 11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Oct. 7, 2011) (citing Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578-80).

Case 3:16-cv-02939-JCS Document 11 Filed 06/16/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Northern District of California

B. Discussion

Applying the test set forth in Openmind Solutions, the Court finds that DBC has 

demonstrated that there is good cause for expedited discovery as to Doe’s identity.

First, DBC has demonstrated that it can identify Doe with sufficient specificity such that

the Court can determine that Doe is a real person or entity who would be subject to the Court’s

jurisdiction. See OpenMind Solutions, Inc., 2011 WL 4715200, at *2. DBC alleges that Doe is 

likely a singular, identifiable adult who is either the subscriber assigned to Doe’s IP address or 

someone who is known to the subscriber. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19–20; see also Davis Decl. ¶ 11. DBC 

bases this allegation on the consistency of Doe’s activity as well as the number and titles of 

copyrightable works that Doe has distributed through BitTorrent. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19–20; see also 

id. Ex. 1 (list of distributions). DBC has also used geolocation technology to trace Doe’s IP 

address to the Northern District of California, specifically Alameda County, thus giving the Court 

jurisdiction over Doe and the present copyright action. Compl. ¶ 14; Davis Decl. ¶ 9. Thus, DBC 

has satisfied this factor.

Second, DBC has identified all steps taken to locate Doe, a factor “aimed at ensuring that 

plaintiffs make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of service of process and 

specifically identifying defendants.” Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. Specifically, DBC 

has alleged that it determined Doe’s Internet Service Provider to be Comcast Cable, traced the IP 

address to this district, and identified BitTorrent as the software used to distribute the film. 

Id. ¶¶ 14–16 & Ex. 1 (list of distributions); see also Davis Decl. ¶¶ 6–10. Therefore, the Court 

concludes that DBC has made a good faith effort to identify Doe and that it will be unable to do so 

unless the Court grants the requested relief.

Third, the allegations in DBC’s Complaint appear to be sufficient to withstand a motion to 

dismiss. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. To establish copyright infringement, a 

plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to establish that it owns a valid copyright and the defendant

copied constituent elements of the copyrighted work that are original. Feist Pub'n, Inc. v. Rural 

Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); see also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 

1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007) (defining the two elements as (1) ownership of the infringed material 

Case 3:16-cv-02939-JCS Document 11 Filed 06/16/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Northern District of California

and (2) that the alleged infringer violated an exclusive right granted to the copyright holder); 

17 U.S.C. § 501(a). DBC alleges that it holds a valid copyright for the film and Doe distributed 

copies of the film without its permission through the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network. Compl. ¶¶ 

8–9, 12-13, 15, 21. DBC has therefore satisfied the third factor.

Finally, the Court finds that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requested discovery 

will lead to information identifying Doe. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 580; Gillespie, 629 

F.2d at 642-43 (stating that expedited discovery to identify unnamed defendants should be allowed 

“unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities”). DBC alleges that Comcast 

Cable generally assigns an IP address to a single subscriber for extended time periods and 

maintains records that identify its subscribers. Compl. ¶ 21. DBC further alleges that these 

records will either identify Doe or the subscriber who authorized Doe’s Internet access. Id. ¶¶ 21–

22; see also Davis Decl. ¶ 11. In sum, DBC has demonstrated that obtaining Comcast Cable’s 

records regarding Doe’s IP address will likely reveal Doe’s identity.

Granting expedited discovery to permit DBC to identify Doe appears to be the only way to 

advance this litigation. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, No. C 08-1193 SBA, 2008 WL 

4104214, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). Moreover, granting DBC’s request for expedited 

discovery does not prejudice Doe because it is narrowly tailored to seek only Doe’s identity. See 

id. DBC has therefore met its burden of establishing good cause.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, DBC’s Motion is GRANTED as follows.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DBC shall file a proposed subpoena by June 28, 2016. 

The subpoena shall order Comcast Cable to produce only the names and addresses for the

subscribers assigned IP address 73.92.201.24 from April 11, 2016, to May 18, 2016 (“the 

subscribers”). The subpoena shall give Comcast Cable at least 45 days to produce the names and 

addresses of the subscribers. Once the Court approves the subpoena, DBC may serve it. DBC 

shall serve a copy of this Order with the subpoena.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon receiving the subpoena and Order, Comcast Cable 

shall have 14 days to provide the subscribers with the following: (1) notice that it received a 

Case 3:16-cv-02939-JCS Document 11 Filed 06/16/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

subpoena from Dallas Buyers Club, LLC ordering it to produce their names and addresses; (2) 

notice that the subscribers have 30 days to seek a protective order from the Court or file 

responsive pleadings; and (3) a copy of this Order. Comcast Cable shall also have 30 days to seek 

a protective order from the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Comcast Cable shall preserve all subpoenaed 

information pending its delivering such information to DBC or the final resolution of a timely 

filed and granted Motion to Quash the subpoena with respect to such information.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any information disclosed to DBC in response to a 

subpoena may be used by DBC solely for the purpose of protecting its rights under the Copyright 

Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02939-JCS Document 11 Filed 06/16/16 Page 6 of 6