Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02353/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02353-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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 

CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

DOE - 68.7.69.57, 

 Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD 

ORDER DENYING SECOND 

MOTION TO EXPEDITE 

DISCOVERY 

[ECF NO. 6] 

On September 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed its initial Ex Parte Motion to 

Expedite Discovery. (ECF No. 4). The Court denied without prejudice the 

initial motion on September 26, 2016, because Plaintiff failed to state when 

it conducted the geolocation search to determine that the subscriber of the 

subject Internet Protocol (“IP”) address likely was subject to the personal 

jurisdiction of this Court. (ECF No. 5 at 4-5). The Court explained: 

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 

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 7 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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

location of the subscriber. If not, less so, potentially to the point of 

irrelevance. Here, Plaintiff does not provide the date that geolocation 

was performed, stating only that it was performed “prior to the filing of 

this action.” (ECF No. 4-3, ¶ 5). This is not good enough. As much as 

four months may have passed between the alleged infringement and the 

geolocation. Plaintiff must provide the date that geolocation occurred 

and, if performed closer to the filing date, must provide further support 

and argument regarding the probative value of the geolocation. 

(Id.) 

On September 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant second Ex Parte

Motion to Expedite Discovery. (ECF No. 6). The instant motion is identical 

to the initial motion except that Plaintiff submitted as an Exhibit the 

Declaration and Expert Report of Dr. Simone Richter regarding the 

operation of the Maverickeye system used by Plaintiff to identify the IP 

address and Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) which leased the IP address 

to the subscriber involved in the allegedly illegal activities. (ECF No. 6-3). 

Although Plaintiff says in its Memorandum of Law in support of this Motion 

that “Maverick . . . documents the . . . general location of the infringing 

activity . . . ,” this statement is not supported by counsel’s Declaration. 

(ECF No. 6-1 at 5; ECF No. 6-4). Plaintiff also has not specified where, in 

Dr. Richter’s 27 page expert report, the Court could find the answer to the 

question of when a geolocation search was performed. 

Plaintiff having provided no guidance, the Court reviewed the report. 

Dr. Richter presents an extract of the Maverickeye database entries. (ECF 

No. 6-3 ¶ 9.14). Several entries at the top of page 12 state that information 

is recorded regarding the city, country, postal code and other information 

regarding the “ISP.” (Id.) Geographically locating the ISP is not the same 

thing as locating the IP address. If the term “ISP” in the Maverickeye 

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 7 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

16-cv-02353-DMS-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

database means that Maverickeye, in addition to identifying the ISP, 

roughly geolocated the subject IP address, Plaintiff or Dr. Richter should 

have said so. 

Instead, the Court is left with what it had before, the Declaration of 

James S. Davis, Plaintiff’s counsel, who states that he personally 

“confirmed” and traced the subject Internet Protocol address to San Diego 

County by using certain websites at some date prior to filing the instant 

Complaint. Davis Declaration ¶ 9. (ECF No. 6-4 ¶ 9). The Court is 

unwilling to make the leap that by using the word “confirmed” Mr. Davis is 

saying that the term “ISP” in the Maverickeye database means IP address. 

The general location of the IP address provided in the chart submitted as 

Exhibit 1 (ECF N0. 6-2) to the instant motion does not identify whether that 

information came from Maverickeye or from Mr. Davis’ searches. Taking 

Dr. Richter at his word, Maverickeye provided location information only 

about the ISP. 

Inasmuch as the Court remains without evidence regarding the date 

of the geolocation, the instant motion again is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 3, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD Document 7 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 3