Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01883/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01883-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

16-cv-1883-WQH-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP 

address 107.135.65.209, 

 Defendant.

 Case No.: 16-cv-1883-WQH-MDD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR EARLY DISCOVERY 

[ECF NO. 4] 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Serve a 

Third Party Subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference filed on October 11, 

2016. (ECF No. 4). The identity of the Defendant is not known at this time. 

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 In their Complaint, filed on July 25, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that the 

subscriber or user of the above-referenced Internet Protocol (“IP”) address 

violated federal copyright law by using the BitTorrent file distribution 

network to copy and distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted work through the 

Case 3:16-cv-01883-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 8
2 

16-cv-1883-WQH-MDD 

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

Internet without Plaintiff’s permission. (ECF No. 1). 

 Plaintiff motion seeks an order permitting it to serve a third party 

subpoena, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on Internet Service Provider 

(“ISP”) AT&T U-verse requiring the ISP to supply the name and address of 

its subscriber to Plaintiff. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

 Formal discovery generally is not permitted without 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.2d 

637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Requests for early or expedited discovery are 

granted upon a showing by the moving party of good cause. See Semitool, 

Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002) 

(applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff’s 

request for expedited discovery”). 

 “The Ninth Circuit has held that when the defendants’ identities are 

unknown at the time the complaint is filed, courts may grant plaintiffs 

leave to take early discovery to determine the defendants’ identities ‘unless 

it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the 

complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.’” 808 Holdings, LLC v. 

Collective of December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12-cv-0186 MMA (RBB), 

2012 WL 1648838, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (quoting Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 

Case 3:16-cv-01883-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 8
3 

16-cv-1883-WQH-MDD 

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

642). “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 apply a three-factor test when considering motions for 

early discovery to identify Doe defendants. Id. 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. 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity 

 “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 

Case 3:16-cv-01883-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 8
4 

16-cv-1883-WQH-MDD 

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

technology’ to trace the IP addresses to a physical point of origin.” 808 

Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838, at *4 (quoting OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. 

Does 1-39, No. C-11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); 

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

2470986 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)). 

 In Exhibit A to its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the user of the 

subject IP address engaged in allegedly infringing activity involving 

approximately 100 of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works from April 17, 2014, 

through June 30, 2016. (ECF No. 1-2). In support of the instant Motion, 

Plaintiff submitted declarations regarding the manner in which the 

allegedly infringing IP address was identified; identifying the ISP as AT&T 

U-verse; and located the IP address in San Marcos, California, within the 

Southern District of California. See Exhibits B through E-1 to Plaintiff’s 

Motion (ECF Nos. 4-2 through 4-7). Critically, the Declaration of Attorney 

Henrik Mosesi states that he performed the geolocation approximately 3 

weeks prior to filing the Complaint. (ECF No. 4-7 ¶ 12). The last 

infringement is alleged to have occurred on June 30, 2016, and the 

Complaint was filed on July 25, 2016. Accordingly, the effort to geolocate 

the IP address occurred within weeks of last allegedly offending download. 

In these cases, it is most likely that the subscriber is a residential user 

and the IP address assigned by ISP is “dynamic.”1 Consequently, it matters 

 

1 “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 re-assigned to many different computers in a short period of time.” 

Case 3:16-cv-01883-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 4 of 8
5 

16-cv-1883-WQH-MDD 

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

when the geolocation was performed. In the context of dynamic IP 

addresses, “a person using [an IP] address one month may not have been 

the same person using it the next.” State of Connecticut v. Shields, No. 

CR06352303, 2007 WL 1828875 *6 (Conn. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2007). If 

performed in temporal proximity to the offending downloads, the 

geolocation may be probative of the physical location of the subscriber. If 

not, less so, potentially to the point of irrelevance. Here, Plaintiff appears 

to have conducted the required geolocation close enough in time to the 

allegedly offending behavior to be probative. 

Consequently, Plaintiff has identified the Defendant, at this point, 

with sufficient specificity. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 4715200, at 

*2 (concluding that plaintiff satisfied the first factor by identifying the 

defendants’ IP addresses and by tracing the IP addresses to a point of origin 

within the State of California); Pink Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3 

(same). In addition, Plaintiff has presented evidence that the identified IP 

address is physically located in this district. 

B. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant 

 Plaintiff appears to have obtained and investigated the available data 

pertaining to the alleged infringement in a good faith effort to locate 

Defendant. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 4715200, at *3; MCGIP, 

LLC v. Does 1-149, 2011 WL 3607666, *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011); Pink 

Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3. 

 

Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332, 356-57 (D. D.C. 

2011)(citations omitted). 

Case 3:16-cv-01883-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 5 of 8
6 

16-cv-1883-WQH-MDD 

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

C. Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss 

 Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff owns the registered 

copyright of the work that Defendant allegedly copied and distributed using 

the BitTorrent file distribution network and that it did not permit or 

consent to Defendant’s copying or distribution of its work. It appears 

Plaintiff has stated a prima facie claim for copyright infringement that can 

withstand a motion to dismiss. 

D. Personal Jurisdiction 

 As discussed above, Plaintiff has sufficiently established that it is 

likely that the Defendant is located within the Southern District of 

California and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Court. 

E. Venue 

 “The venue of suits for infringement of copyright is not determined by 

the general provision governing suits in the federal district courts, rather by 

the venue provision of the Copyright Act.” Goldberg v. Cameron, 482 F. 

Supp. 2d 1136, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a); Lumiere v. 

Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174, 176 (1923)). “In copyright 

infringement actions, venue is proper ‘in the district in which the defendant 

or his agent resides or may be found.’” Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & 

Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a)). 

“The Ninth Circuit interprets this statutory provision to allow venue ‘in any 

judicial district in which the defendant would be amendable to personal 

jurisdiction if the district were a separate state.’” Id.

 As discussed above, Defendant is likely to be located in this District 

and the acts complained of also likely occurred here. Accordingly, venue 

Case 3:16-cv-01883-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 6 of 8
7 

16-cv-1883-WQH-MDD 

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

appears proper in this District at this time. 

F. Specific Discovery Request 

Plaintiff has not provided a proposed subpoena. Plaintiff stated, 

however, that it will seek to obtain only the name and address of the 

subscriber associated with the IP address from the ISP. 

 The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause to subpoena records 

from AT&T U-verse identifying the subscriber assigned to the subject IP 

address at the identified times. The subpoena must be limited to 

documents identifying the subscriber’s name and address during the 

relevant period. That information should be sufficient for Plaintiff to be 

able to identify and serve Defendant. If Plaintiff is unable to identify and 

serve Defendant after receiving a response to the subpoena, Plaintiff may 

seek leave from the Court to pursue additional discovery. 

G. Cable Privacy Act 

 Finally, the Court must consider the requirements of the Cable 

Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551. The 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). A cable operator, however, may disclose such information if the 

disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable operator provides 

the subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). The ISP 

that Plaintiff intends to subpoena in this case is a cable operator within the 

meaning of the Act. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

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

Discovery is GRANTED, as follows: 

Case 3:16-cv-01883-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 7 of 8
8 

16-cv-1883-WQH-MDD 

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

 1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena, pursuant to and compliant with 

the procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on AT&T U-verse seeking only the 

name and address of the subscriber assigned to the subject IP address for 

the relevant time period. 

 2. The subpoena must provide at least forty-five (45) calendar days 

from service to production. AT&T U-verse may seek to quash or modify the 

subpoena as provided at Rule 45(d)(3). 

 3. AT&T U-verse shall notify its subscriber, no later than fourteen 

(14) calendar days after service of the subpoena, that his or her identity has 

been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been 

subpoenaed shall then have thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the 

notice to seek a protective order, to move to quash or modify the subpoena 

or file any other responsive pleading. 

 4. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with the subpoena upon 

AT&T U-verse. AT&T U-verse, in turn, must provide a copy of this Order 

along with the required notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought 

pursuant to this Order. 

 5. No other discovery is authorized at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 12, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01883-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/12/16 Page 8 of 8