Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00759/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00759-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

16-cv-00759-LAB (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

QOTD Film Investment LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Doe-72.220.214.236,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-00759-LAB (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE MOTION TO EXPEDITE 

DISCOVERY

[ECF No. 5]

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

(ECF No. 5.) No opposition was filed, as no defendant has been named or served. For the 

reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is an affiliate of Benaroya Pictures, a production company with a catalog 

of major motion pictures. (ECF No. 1 at 2, ¶5.) Plaintiff claims to be the registered 

copyright owner of the motion picture Queen of the Desert. (ECF No. 5-1 at 1.) Plaintiff 

asserts the person or entity assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) address 72.220.214.236 “is a 

BitTorrent user, or ‘peer,’ whose computer is interconnected with others and used for 

illegally copying and distributing Plaintiff’s motion picture to others.” (Id.) 

Case 3:16-cv-00759-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 8
2

16-cv-00759-LAB (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

On March 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant “Doe72.220.214.236.” (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges direct copyright infringement 

against Defendant and asserts Plaintiff is the registered copyright holder for the motion 

picture allegedly infringed by Defendant. (Id. at ¶¶6-8, 13) Plaintiff asserts Defendant

used the BitTorrent file distribution network to copy and distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted 

motion picture without Plaintiff’s consent “on over 120 occasions, between 01/29/2016 at 

01:19:46 (UST) and 1/31/2016 at 17:17:45 (UST).” (Id. at ¶13.) 

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

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

Defendant by his, her, or its Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), Cox Communications. 

(ECF No. 5-1 at 2.) In the present Motion, Plaintiff asserts 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 thus Cox Communications can use 

the above-listed IP address to identify Defendant. (Id.) Accordingly, “Plaintiff seeksleave 

to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP Cox Communications. . . . limited to the name and 

address of the individual/individuals associated with the IP address named as Defendant” 

in order to prosecute Plaintiff’s copyright infringement against Defendant. (Id.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Early Discovery

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 

Case 3:16-cv-00759-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 8
3

16-cv-00759-LAB (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

prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 

208 F.R.D. 273, 275–76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). With respect to Internet infringement cases, 

“courts routinely find good cause exists to issue a Rule 45 subpoena to discover[ ] a Doe 

defendant’s identity prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, where a plaintiff makes a prima facie

showing of infringement, there is no other way to identify a Doe defendant, and there is a 

risk an ISP will destroy its logs prior to the conference.” Bright Solutions for Dyslexia, 

Inc. v. Doe 1, 15-cv-1618-JSC, 2015 WL 5159125, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) (quoting

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, C-08-1193-SBA, 2008 WL 4104207, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

3, 2008)).

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. 

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 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).

B. The Cable Privacy Act

The Cable Privacy Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing 

personally identifiable information aboutsubscribers without the prior written or electronic 

consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1) (2015). However, a cable operator may 

disclose a subscriber’s personally identifiable information if the disclosure is made 

pursuant to a court order and the cable operator provides the subscriber with notice of the 

order. Id. § 551(c)(2)(B). A cable operator is defined as “any person or group of persons 

(A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more 

affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or (B) who otherwise controls or 

Case 3:16-cv-00759-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 8
4

16-cv-00759-LAB (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

is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable 

system.” Id. § 522(5). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Early Discovery

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 Plaintiff 

may obtain the true name and address of Defendant to protect and enforce Plaintiff’s rights 

as set forth in the Complaint. (ECF No. 5-1.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s 

Motion is GRANTED. 

1. Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity

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 E37917C8EEB4585E6421358FF32F29C 

D63C23C91, 2012 WL 1648838, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (citing Openmind 

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

Oct. 7, 2011)); Pink Lotus Entm’t, LLC v. Does 1–46, No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011 WL 

2470986, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)). 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint and the declaration of James S. Davis 

filed in support of the present Motion sufficiently specify that Defendant would be subject 

to this Court’s jurisdiction. The declaration of James S. Davis, the attorney representing 

Plaintiff, states that Mr. Davis “personally went through the data provided by Plaintiff’s

investigators, MaverickEye UG (‘MaverickEye’) and selected the IP Address based upon

the traced distribution of Plaintiff’s Motion Picture.” (ECF No. 5-3 at ¶5.) “The Data 

Case 3:16-cv-00759-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 4 of 8
5

16-cv-00759-LAB (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

provided by MaverickEye is information that is related to an individual IP Address. This 

data is the tracking record containing the ISP, unique file hash relating to the Motion 

Picture, date, location, and number of instances wherein MaverickEye traced or observed 

IP Address 72.220.214.236 making available an infringing copy of Plaintiff’s Motion 

Picture.” (Id. at ¶6.) Mr. Davis “identified defendant, DOE-72.220.214.236, which on 

121 occasions, between 01/29/2016 at 01:19:46 (UST) and 01/31/2016 at 17:17:45 (UST), 

was observed through direct TCP/IP connection as infringing the Motion Picture . . . with 

the unique hash 896B438F8D8F7C443F4B88A24322B8763A3E9885.” (Id. at ¶7; see 

also ECF No. 5-2.) Mr. Davis personally entered the IP Address “into 3 separate websites 

that contain a function for determining the location of an IP Address” and “confirmed by

geolocation trackers” that the Defendant’s use of the IP Address occurred in San Diego 

County, California. (Id. at ¶¶8-10.)

Based on the above, the Court finds Plaintiff has identified Defendant with enough 

specificity for the Court to determine Defendant is a real person or entity who would be 

subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff has provided the Court with Defendant’s 

unique IP address, the dates and times during which Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials were 

infringed by a computer(s) using Defendant’s unique IP address, and a verified statement 

that geolocation technology has found Defendant’s unique IP address to be physically 

located within this district. See 808 Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838, at *4; see also ECF No 

5-1 at 4; ECF Nos. 5-2 and 5-3. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently 

satisfied the first prong of the Ninth Circuit’s “good cause” standard. 

2. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant 

For the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff must next identify all of the steps 

it took to locate Defendant to ensure the Court it made a good faith effort to identify and 

serve process on Defendant. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. The Court finds 

Plaintiff met this burden. 

Plaintiff utilized investigators MaverickEye and geolocation trackers to identify the 

Defendant. (ECF No. 5-3 at ¶¶5-11.) Plaintiff identified who Defendant uses as his or her 

Case 3:16-cv-00759-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 5 of 8
6

16-cv-00759-LAB (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

ISP, Cox Communications, where Defendant is generally located, and what software 

Defendant used to commit the alleged acts of infringement. (Id.; ECF No. 5-1 at 5.) 

However, Plaintiff generally maintains that there are no other practical measures available 

to determine the actual identity of Defendant. Plaintiff appears to have obtained and 

investigated the available data pertaining to the alleged infringement in a good faith effort 

to locate Defendant. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently satisfied the 

second prong of the Ninth Circuit’s “good cause” standard. 

3. Whether Plaintiff’s Suit Can Withstand a Motion to Dismiss

For the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff must lastly show that its suit 

against Defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss. Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 

579 (citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642). The Court finds Plaintiff has met this burden.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges only one cause of action against Defendant: direct 

copyright infringement. (ECF No. 1 at 5–7.) To prove a claim of direct copyright 

infringement, a plaintiff “must show: (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) that the 

defendant violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.” 

Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 501(a)

(2003)). Here, Plaintiff alleges it owns the registered copyright of the work that Defendant 

allegedly copied and distributed using the BitTorrent file distribution network. (ECF No. 

1 at ¶¶4, 6, 12; ECF No. 5-1 at 5.) In addition, Plaintiff also alleges it did not permit or 

consent to Defendant’s copying or distribution of its work. (ECF No. 1 at ¶35; ECF No. 

5-1 at 5.) Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has alleged the prima facie elements of 

direct copyright infringement and its suit against Defendant would likely withstand a 

motion to dismiss.1 

/ / / 

 

1 Personal jurisdiction and venue appear to be sufficiently pled as well given Plaintiff’s allegations that 

Defendant’s IP Address has been traced to San Diego County (and therefore Defendant can be found in 

this district) and the infringing acts complained of occurred in this district. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶3, 13-16; 

ECF Nos. 1-2, 5-2, and 5-3.)

Case 3:16-cv-00759-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 6 of 8
7

16-cv-00759-LAB (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

Based on the above, the Court finds good cause exists to allow Plaintiff to serve a 

Rule 45 subpoena upon Cox Communications at this time, and Plaintiff’s Motion is 

therefore GRANTED.

B. The Cable Privacy Act

Cox Communications is a “cable operator” within the meaning of the Cable Privacy 

Act, and therefore the Court must consider the requirements of the Act in granting

Plaintiff’s Motion. The Cable Privacy 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), but cable operators 

may disclose personally identifiable information if the disclosure is made pursuant to a 

court order and the cable operator provides the subscriber with notice of the order. As 

such, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff may serve on Cox Communications a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

45 subpoena seeking the name and address of Defendant, the Cox 

Communications subscriber assigned IP address 72.220.214.236. The Court 

finds this information should be sufficient for Plaintiff to identify, locate, and 

serve process on Defendant, and Plaintiff shall not seek from Cox 

Communications any other personally identifiable information about Defendant

in its subpoena; 

2. Plaintiff’s subpoena to Cox Communications must provide a minimum of 

45 calendar days’ notice before any production responsive to the subpoena shall 

be made to Plaintiff;

3. At the time Plaintiff serves its subpoena on Cox Communications, Plaintiff shall 

also serve on Cox Communications a copy of this Order;

4. Within 14 calendar days after service of the subpoena, Cox Communications

shall notify the subscriber assigned IP address 72.220.214.236 that his, her, or its 

identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff and shall provide the subscriber a copy 

of this Order with the required notice;

Case 3:16-cv-00759-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 7 of 8
8

16-cv-00759-LAB (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

5. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have 30 calendar days 

from the date of such notice to challenge Cox Communications’ disclosure of his, 

her, or its name and address to Plaintiff by filing an appropriate pleading with 

this Court contesting the subpoena;

6. If Cox Communications wishes to move to quash the subpoena, it shall do so 

before it is required to respond to the subpoena by filing a motion to quash with 

this Court; and

7. If a motion to quash or subscriber challenge is brought, Cox Communications

shall preserve the information sought by Plaintiff in the subpoena pending 

resolution of any such motion or challenge. 

Dated: April 5, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-00759-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 04/05/16 Page 8 of 8