Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00467/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00467-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

16cv467-BAS (DHB) 

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 

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC, a Texas 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DOE-68.7.128.206, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 16cv467-BAS (DHB) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX 

PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

CONDUCT A DEPOSITION BY 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS UNDER 

FRCP 31[ECF No. 10] 

 On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff, Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, filed an Ex Parte Motion for 

Leave to Conduct a Deposition by Written Questions Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 31. (ECF No. 10.) Because Defendant has not been named or served, no 

opposition or reply briefs have been filed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s 

Motion is DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On February 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Doe, a subscriber assigned 

IP address 68.7.128.206 (“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 

Case 3:16-cv-00467-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

16cv467-BAS (DHB) 

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

Plaintiff’s copyrighted work through the Internet without Plaintiff’s permission. (ECF No. 

1 at ¶ 35.) 

 On March 4, 2016, the Court permitted Plaintiff to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Cox 

Communications (“Cox”) to learn the identity of the subscriber assigned to Defendant’s IP 

address. (ECF No. 7.) 

 On April 21, 2016, Cox provided Plaintiff with the name and physical address of the 

subscriber. (ECF No. 10-1 at 4.) A few days before Plaintiff received the information 

from Cox, an individual named Westly, who identified himself as the subscriber Ruby 

Clont’s son, telephoned Plaintiff’s counsel. (ECF No. 10-8 at ¶ 2.) Westly indicated his 

mother had received a notice of copyright infringement from Cox,1

 and wanted to know 

why she had received it. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel declined to speak with Westly 

because he was not the subscriber. (Id.) Westly requested counsel to contact his mother, 

and provided a telephone number. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel called Ruby 

Clont. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Counsel informed her that Cox had not yet provided Plaintiff with the 

subscriber’s identity, but that once he received the information, he would contact her. (Id.) 

Ms. Clont informed Plaintiff’s counsel that only her husband and son had access to the 

internet services provided by Cox, provided demographic information regarding her 

family, and indicated that Cox had contacted her about infringing activity before, but that 

when she informed them it was not her, no further action was taken. (Id. at 6-8.) 

 On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff sent a letter to Ms. Clont requesting that she voluntarily 

cooperate with Plaintiff to identify the infringer, and inviting her to contact Plaintiff’s 

counsel with questions. (ECF No. 10-5.) On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff sent a second letter 

to the subscriber. (ECF No. 10-6.) Plaintiff contends it has not received a response to the 

letters. 

                                                                

1

 Pursuant to the Court’s March 4, 2016 Order authorizing Plaintiff to serve a subpoena 

on Cox, the Court required Cox to notify the subscriber that his or her identity had been 

subpoenaed by Plaintiff before Cox could release the subscriber’s information. (ECF No. 

7 at 6-7.) 

Case 3:16-cv-00467-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

16cv467-BAS (DHB) 

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

 Therefore, Plaintiff brings the instant motion seeking permission to depose the 

subscriber by written questions under Rule 31. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff acknowledges that 

the Court has previously denied oral depositions of third parties under Rule 45. Plaintiff 

argues that Rule 31 provides is a less burdensome means for Plaintiff to solicit information 

than by use of depositions under Rule 45. 

II. ANALYSIS 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31 permits depositions of any person by written 

questions instead of by oral examination. Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(a). Based on the Rule’s title, it 

may sound like a deposition by written questions is a less burdensome way to obtain 

deposition discovery. However, once the Rule is examined, it is clear that depositions by 

written questions “entail more than mailing questions to the deponents and awaiting their 

written response.” Dasenbrook v. Enenmoh, 2015 WL 1889069, *2 (E.D. Cal. April 24, 

2015). Rule 31 requires the party taking the deposition to deliver the written questions to 

a deposition officer. Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(b). The deposition then proceeds in a manner similar 

to oral depositions. Id. (incorporating Rule 30(c), (e), and (f)). The deponent is put under 

oath, and then the deposition officer “must ask the deponent [the written] questions and 

record the answers verbatim.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(3). Following the deposition, a 

transcript is prepared in the same manner as an oral deposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(b)(2)-(3). 

 Therefore, Plaintiff’s contention that a deposition by written questions is appropriate 

here because it is a less intrusive alternative is without merit. In addition, the Court notes 

that Plaintiff’s counsel has previously abused the procedure under Rule 31. See Cobbler 

Nevada LLC v. Doe 68.8.213.203, 15cv2729-GPC (JMA), ECF No. 27 (S.D. Cal. July 5, 

2016) (denying motion to compel responses to deposition by written questions where 

counsel attempted to use Rule 31 in a manner that was functionally similar to 

interrogatories, which is improper and not permitted by the federal rules). Therefore, the 

Court declines to permit Plaintiff to pursue a deposition by written questions, which if the 

Rule were correctly followed, would require essentially the same burden on the third party 

as an oral deposition. Further, in this case, the Court notes that the subscriber’s son reached 

Case 3:16-cv-00467-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

16cv467-BAS (DHB) 

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

out to Plaintiff’s counsel after receiving notice that the Rule 45 subpoena had been served 

on Cox, and gave counsel the subscriber’s telephone number. Counsel then contacted the 

subscriber, who was apparently willing to discuss the alleged infringement. However, 

counsel elected not to ask her about the information it now seeks in the proposed Rule 31 

questions because counsel was awaiting a response from Cox, thereby passing up an 

opportunity to investigate its claims. 

III. CONCLUSION 

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

is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 15, 2016 

 _________________________ 

 DAVID H. BARTICK 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00467-BAS-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 4