Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01810/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01810-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 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

- 1 - 10cv1810-JLS (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a

CORBIN FISHER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1810-JLS (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

SECOND REQUEST FOR

IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

(Doc. No. 11)

vs.

PORNILOVE.NET, “COREY,” ANWAR

OGISTE, and JOHN DOES 3-1000,

Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 31, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations for copyright

infringement. (Doc. No. 1). On October 27, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a motion seeking

permission to take early discovery for the limited purpose of ascertaining the identities of certain

“Doe” defendants so as to facilitate service of process. (Doc. No. 3). More specifically, Plaintiff

sought to subpoena Comcast Cable (in its capacity as an Internet Service Provider) to determine

the names and addresses of certain subscribers connected to certain IP addresses that have been

linked to infringements of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. (Doc. No. 3). On January 19, 2011, the

court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 12).

In the period of time between Plaintiff’s first motion for early discovery and the court’s

order granting the motion, Plaintiff filed a similar motion seeking additional early discovery. 

(Doc. No. 11). In this second motion for early discovery, Plaintiff seeks to subpoena three

Case 3:10-cv-01810-JLS-WMC Document 14 Filed 02/01/11 Page 1 of 4
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 - 10cv1810-JLS (WMc)

separate Internet Service Providers - Atlantic Broadband, Comcast Cable, and T-Mobile - to

determine the names and addresses connected to four recently discovered IP addresses that have

also been linked to infringements. (Doc. No. 11). 

The issue before the court today is whether Plaintiff’s motion seeking to subpoena these

three Internet Service Providers linked to these four infringing IP addresses should be granted.

II. DISCUSSION

“As a general rule, discovery proceedings take place only after the defendant has been

served; however, 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 of 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)). These requests are allowed

upon a showing of good cause. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Elec. Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76

(N.D. Cal. 2002). Within the internet context, Courts have recognized “[s]ervice of process can

pose a special dilemma for plaintiffs in cases . . . [where] the tortious activity occurred entirely online.” Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. at 577. 

A three-factor test has been developed for instances where courts are considering motions

requesting early discovery to assist in the identification of certain defendants. Seescandy.com, 185

F.R.D. at 578-80. Factor 1: The moving party should be able to 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.” Seescandy.com, 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)). Here, given the facts

known, Plaintiff has identified the missing party(s) with as much clarity as possible. Plaintiff has

stated that these missing “Does” are persons or entities and that these persons/entities have been

specifically “observed and documented” as infringing on its copyrighted works. (Pl’s Mtn. at ¶

11). Thus, as real persons/entities, these Does can be sued in federal court.

Factor 2: The moving party should be able to identify “all previous steps taken to locate

the elusive defendant.” Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. at 578 (citing Plant v. Doe, 19 F. Supp. 2d

1316, 1320 (S.D. Fl. 1998)). Here, Plaintiff previously issued subpoenas directed at Yahoo!

Case 3:10-cv-01810-JLS-WMC Document 14 Filed 02/01/11 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 - 10cv1810-JLS (WMc)

requesting all relevant information pertaining to Pornilove’s Yahoo! Groups. (Pl’s Mtn. at ¶ 5). 

Yahoo!’s response included four specific IP addresses. (Pl’s Mtn. at ¶ 5). Utilizing the

information received from Yahoo!, Plaintiff’s research revealed the relevant Internet Service

Providers for these four addresses are Comcast Cable (for two of them), Atlantic Broadband, and

T-Mobile. (Pl’s Mtn. at ¶ 5). Because these are purely online transactions occurring solely over

the Internet, Plaintiff is not aware of any other practical way to identify the Doe Defendants-the

infringing users-other than through an order mandating the production of the information by the

Internet Service Providers. (Pl’s Mtn. at ¶ 12). In other words, these Does have proven to be

elusive and Plaintiff knows of no other avenue available to access this information except through

Comcast Cable, Atlantic Broadband, and T-Mobile.

Factor 3: The moving party should be able to “establish to the Court’s satisfaction that

[its] suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss.” Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. at

578 (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Here, Plaintiff has alleged a

prima facie claim of copyright infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 106(1)(3); (Compl. at ¶¶ 14-17). 

Specifically, Plaintiff claimed: (1) it owns and has registered the copyrighted works at issue in this

case; (2) the Defendants reproduced and distributed those works without authorization; and (3)

Plaintiff was damaged by Defendants’ actions. Accordingly, since Plaintiff has alleged all the

elements of copyright infringement in the complaint, its suit could withstand a motion to dismiss.

Thus, like its first motion for early discovery, Plaintiff has again adequately satisfied the

three-factor test. Furthermore, the scope of this order has been sufficiently tailored to achieve the

reasonable and necessary purpose of identifying already known alleged offenders - the four IP

addresses discovered through Plaintiff’s subpoena directed at Yahoo!. As such, the Court finds

good cause to grant Plaintiff the relief it seeks. 

III. LIMITATIONS

To the extent Plaintiff moves the Court to issue an order impacting not only Comcast

Cable, Atlantic Broadband, and T-Mobile, but also “any other relevant service providers [Plaintiff]

later identifies,” the Court refuses to grant this type of open-ended order. (Pl’s Mtn. at ¶ 22). 

Rather, the Court will only execute such orders after being presented with, and individually

Case 3:10-cv-01810-JLS-WMC Document 14 Filed 02/01/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 10cv1810-JLS (WMc)

reviewing under the three-factor test, motions supported by specifically articulated facts. Thus, to

the extent it is being requested, the Court refuses to grant Plaintiff any type of open-ended order or

decree with respect to early discovery of unnamed Internet Service Providers or unspecified IP

addresses.

The three Internet Service Providers shall have seven (7) days after service of the

subpoenas to notify the subscriber(s) their identity(s) has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. Each

subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have twenty-one (21) calendar days from the

date of such notice to file a responsive pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 1, 2011

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-01810-JLS-WMC Document 14 Filed 02/01/11 Page 4 of 4