Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02352/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02352-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

16-cv-2352 WQH (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

CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOE-72.197.111.62,

 Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-2352 WQH (JLB) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION TO EXPEDITE 

DISCOVERY

[ECF No. 4]

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Discovery. 

(ECF No. 4.) No opposition was filed, as no defendant has been named or served. For the 

reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff is the registered copyright owner of the motion picture Criminal. (ECF No. 

4-1 at 1.) Plaintiff asserts the person or entity assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) address 

72.197.111.62 has illegally copied and distributed Criminal through his, her, or its use of 

the online BitTorrent file distribution network. (Id.) 

Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a Complaint against Defendant 

“Doe–72.197.111.62” on September 19, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges a 

single claim of copyright infringement against Defendant. (Id. at 8–9.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02352-WQH-JLB Document 5 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 5
2

16-cv-2352 WQH (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

Because Defendant used the Internet to commit the alleged infringement, Plaintiff 

knows Defendant only by his, her, or its IP address, which Plaintiff believes was assigned 

to Defendant by the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) Cox Communications. (ECF No. 4-

1 at 2.) In the present Motion, Plaintiff asserts that Cox Communications has “the records 

which tie the IP address used to infringe plaintiff’s rights to a specific party who contracted 

with Cox Communications for service” and that “[w]ithout this information, plaintiff 

cannot ascertain the identity of the defendant nor pursue this lawsuit to protect its valuable 

copyrights.” (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Cox 

Communications to obtain the name and address associated with IP address 72.197.111.62. 

(Id.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Discovery is generally not permitted before the parties have conferred pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) unless authorized by court order. 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). 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

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 

Case 3:16-cv-02352-WQH-JLB Document 5 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 5
3

16-cv-2352 WQH (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

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

Plaintiff seeks an order allowing it to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Cox 

Communications before the parties conduct a Rule 26(f) Conference in this case so that 

Plaintiff may obtain the true name and address of Defendant. (ECF No. 4-1 at 2.) For the 

reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 

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. 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, LLC v. 

Collective of December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12cv00186 MMA (RBB), 2012 WL

12884688, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2012) (citing Openmind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1–39, 

No. C-11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); Pink Lotus 

Entm’t, LLC v. Does 1–46, No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011 WL 2470986, at *6–7 (N.D. Cal. 

June 21, 2011)). 

Case 3:16-cv-02352-WQH-JLB Document 5 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 5
4

16-cv-2352 WQH (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

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion fails to identify Defendant with 

sufficient specificity to enable the Court to determine that Defendant would be subject to 

its jurisdiction. It is unclear whether IP address 72.197.111.62 is a “dynamic” or “static” 

IP address. It is most likely that the user of IP address 72.197.111.62 is a residential user 

and that the IP address assigned by Cox Communications is “dynamic.”1 In the context of 

dynamic IP addresses, “a person using [a particular IP] address one month may not have 

been the same person using it the next.” State v. Shields, No. CR06352303, 2007 WL 

1828875, at *6 (Conn. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2007). Consequently, it matters when Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s geolocation efforts were performed. If performed in the temporal proximity to 

the offending downloads, the geolocation may be probative of the physical location of the 

subscriber. If not, the geolocation may potentially be irrelevant. 

Here, Plaintiff attaches to its Motion a table reflecting that the user of IP address 

72.197.111.62 engaged in allegedly infringing activity from May 9, 2016, through May 15, 

2016. (ECF No. 4-2 at 1–2.) In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that IP address 

72.197.111.62 belongs to Cox Communications and that he employed certain geolocation 

technology to locate that IP address within the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 

4-3 at 2–3.) However, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to state the date(s) on which its counsel 

performed the geolocation of IP address 72.197.111.62, stating only that the geolocation

was performed “prior to filing this action.” (ECF No. 4-3 at 2.) As more than four months 

have passed between the alleged infringement and Plaintiff’s filing its complaint, this 

statement is insufficient. Plaintiff must provide the date(s) on which the geolocation of IP 

address 72.197.111.62 occurred. If the geolocation was performed closer to the date that 

Plaintiff filed its complaint than to the alleged dates of infringement, then Plaintiff must 

 

1

“Most consumer IP addresses are ‘dynamic’ as opposed to ‘static.’ 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 reassigned to many different computers in a short period of time.” Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does, 

770 F. Supp. 2d 332, 356 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F. Supp. 2d 153, 

160 (D. Mass. 2008)). 

Case 3:16-cv-02352-WQH-JLB Document 5 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 5
5

16-cv-2352 WQH (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

provide further support and argument regarding the probative value of its geolocation 

efforts.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited 

Discovery (ECF No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2016

 

Case 3:16-cv-02352-WQH-JLB Document 5 Filed 11/07/16 Page 5 of 5