Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01055/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01055-3/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Karsen, Ltd., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01055-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for protective order and motion to quash

(doc. 41), defendant Selihov's response (doc. 45), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 49). 

Defendant issued a subpoena to non-party Google, Inc. seeking seven categories of

items. Plaintiff seeks a protective order preventing defendant from seeking information in

three of these categories. Sections 5 and 7 request information about advertisements

displayed on plaintiff's website through a service provided by Google called Google

AdSense. Defendant has withdrawn this part of his subpoena. Therefore, this portion of

plaintiff's motion is moot.

Section 6 of the subpoena requests the IP addresses used by plaintiff's staff to log into

plaintiff's Google AdSense account. Plaintiff argues that defendant could use this

information improperly. It requests a protective order barring defendant from obtaining,

from Google or any other source, any information about IP addresses used by plaintiff and

its staff members. In his response, defendant proposes two alternatives to alleviate plaintiff's

Case 2:11-cv-01055-FJM Document 54 Filed 08/28/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

concerns. First, he suggests that he could produce his list of IP addresses before obtaining

the IP addresses used by plaintiff. Second, he offers to have his lawyer check the lists of IP

addresses against each other without showing plaintiff's IP addresses to defendant. Plaintiff

does not address either suggestion in its reply. 

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." The IP addresses

used by plaintiff's employees to log into plaintiff's Google AdSense account are relevant to

defendant's defense that these employees posted the allegedly infringing materials on his

website. 

Despite a matter's relevance, the court may limit discovery. "The court may, for good

cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]" Rule 26(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. "A party asserting

good cause bears the burden . . . of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no

protective order is granted." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130

(9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff does not allege that a protective order is necessary to protect it from

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. It speculates on how

defendant might misuse the requested information, but provides no particular facts showing

that harm will result if a protective order is not granted. Plaintiff also does not respond to

defendant's suggested alternatives, even though they would apparently prevent the speculated

misuse. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for protective order and motion to

quash (doc. 41).

DATED this 28th day of August, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01055-FJM Document 54 Filed 08/28/12 Page 2 of 2