Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00444/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00444-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

16cv444 GPC (BGS)

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

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP 

address 76.216.255.36,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv444 GPC (BGS)

ORDER DENYING JOHN DOE 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

QUASH THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA

[ECF No. 9.]

On April 22, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC’s Motion for 

Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena on Defendant John Doe’s Internet Service 

Provider (“ISP”) to identify Defendant, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”)

address 76.216.255.36. (ECF No. 4.) Defendant now moves to quash the Rule 45 

subpoena issued to Defendant’s ISP, AT&T Internet Services, to obtain Defendant’s 

name and address. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff has filed an Opposition and Defendant a 

Reply. (ECF Nos. 13, 15.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Quash 

is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges it owns the copyrights for movies that Defendant used BitTorrent, 

a peer-to-peer file sharing system, to copy and distribute without Plaintiff’s consent. 

Case 3:16-cv-00444-GPC-BGS Document 21 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 5
2

16cv444 GPC (BGS)

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

(Compl. ¶¶ 12-36.) As explained in the Court’s April 22, 2016 Order, to identify the IP 

address that was using BitTorrent for copyright infringement, Plaintiff hired forensic 

investigator, Excipio GmbH (“Excipio”). (Ex Parte Mot. for Leave to File/Serve a Third 

Party Subpoena, Decl. of Daniel Susac (“Susac Decl.”), [ECF No. 4-3] ¶ 7.) In his 

declaration, Mr. Susac, the forensic investigator for Excipio, explains that a computer 

using IP Address 76.216.255.36 “connected to Excipio’s investigative server in order to

transmit a full copy, or portion thereof, of the digital media file[s]” listed in Exhibit A to 

the Complaint — Plaintiff’s works — at a specific time and date. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.) The 

files were compared to Plaintiff’s works and verified to be identical or substantially 

similar to Plaintiff’s works. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-16.) Additionally, Patrick Paige, the founder of 

Computer Forensic, LLC, explains in his declaration, that “during the initial phase of 

Internet based investigations, the offender is only known to law enforcement by an IP 

address” and that “the process used by law enforcement mirrors the process used by 

Malibu Media to correlate an IP address to an individual.” (Ex Parte Mot., Decl. of 

Patrick Paige ¶¶ 9, 14.) He also indicates that identifying the subscriber through the ISP 

is likely to identify the infringer. (Id. ¶ 13.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3) requires a subpoena be quashed or 

modified if it “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter” or “subjects a 

person to undue burden.” In evaluating whether a subpoena is unduly burdensome, “the 

court balances the burden imposed on the party subject to the subpoena by the discovery 

request, the relevance of the information sought to the claims or defenses at issue, the 

breadth of the discovery request, and the litigant’s need for the information.” Liberty 

Media Holdings v. Does, 1-62, 2012 WL 628309, *2 (S.D. Cal. February 24, 2012) 

(citing Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does, 1-1,062, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332, 354-44 (D. 

D.C. 2001)). 

Defendant argues the Court should quash the subpoena issued to AT&T because: 

(1) the subpoena response will not identify the actual infringer; (2) the Court lacks 

Case 3:16-cv-00444-GPC-BGS Document 21 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 5
3

16cv444 GPC (BGS)

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

jurisdiction over Defendant; and (3) and it would subject Defendant to undue burden, 

annoyance, or embarrassment. As noted below, the Court addressed the first two points 

in granting Plaintiff leave to issue the subpoena. However, putting aside whether any of 

these are an appropriate basis to quash a subpoena issued to a third party and authorized 

by order of the Court, the Court addresses each. 

A. Identifying the Infringer

Defendant argues the subpoena response “will only provide the identity of the 

person whose name was on the account at the time of the alleged downloads,” not the 

actual infringer. (Mot. at 10.) Defendant accurately points out it is possible the 

infringement was perpetrated by another member of the household other than Defendant, 

a neighbor, a guest, or even someone that hacked Defendant’s internet access. However,

that does not mean Defendant, the subscriber whose IP address was used to infringe is not 

the infringer. Defendant seems to equate other possibilities existing as proving the equal 

or more likely alternative is impossible. Additionally, Defendant has not cited any 

authority that requires a plaintiff to prove its case of infringement to a certainty prior to 

serving the complaint.1 Defendant is free to argue, and put forth evidence, that he or she 

is not the infringer as the case proceeds, but Plaintiff is not required to prove its case with 

conclusive evidence prior to serving the defendant, particularly when that evidence would 

be impossible to obtain without identifying the subscriber.

B. Jurisdiction

Defendant also argues the Court should quash the subpoena because Plaintiff has 

not provided sufficient evidence concerning the accuracy of its geolocation software. 

(Mot. at 16.) In short, Defendant argues Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence 

that the IP address identified in this case is located within this district. In Opposition to 

 

1 The Court will not repeat the analysis here, but the Court also found Plaintiff identified 

Defendant with sufficient specificity and made a prima facie showing of infringement in 

its Order authorizing service of the subpoena based. (Ex Parte Mot. at 5-8.)

Case 3:16-cv-00444-GPC-BGS Document 21 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 5
4

16cv444 GPC (BGS)

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

the Motion, Plaintiff submitted a declaration identify the database system Plaintiff used to 

determine the IP address at issue is assigned to AT&T Internet Services and located

within the district, as well as information on how the database works and its high 

accuracy rate. (Opp’n, Decl. of Brian M. Heit (“Heit Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-12.) The Court is 

satisfied that the IP address at issue is assigned to a location within this district.2

C. Undue Burden

Defendant argues that disclosing his or her name and address to Plaintiff will 

impose an undue burden because Plaintiff will use the information to force Defendant 

into a settlement to avoid “litigating an expensive lawsuit involving pornography.” (Mot. 

at 6.) Defendant relies on district court decisions recognizing the prevalence of 

“copyright trolls” that file hundreds of cases, not to actually litigate infringement, but to 

obtain the anonymous alleged infringer’s identity for purposes of extorting a settlement 

demand. (Id. at 6-9.) Plaintiff responds that it is not a copyright troll because it owns the 

copyrights being infringed, it has a documented basis to assert infringement, it 

investigates its cases and only proceeds with those having merit, and it does litigate its 

cases, including winning the first ever BitTorrent copyright infringement lawsuit to reach 

trial. (Opp’n at 3-4.) 

Defendant’s Motion focuses primarily on a criticized practice of some entities 

asserting copyright infringement — filing hundreds of cases, often involving 

pornography, with the intention of extracting a settlement from someone based on their 

desire to avoid the embarrassment of being associated with stealing pornography and the 

cost of litigation. However, as to Plaintiff specifically, Defendant relies only on the 

number of cases filed and one instance when an attorney in another of Plaintiff’s cases

acknowledged having conducted an asset search on a defendant. (Reply at 7-8.) The 

 

2 The Court’s conclusion in the context of this motion does not preclude Defendant from 

moving to transfer venue if this is the unusual case when the database is inaccurate. 

Defendant’s motion does not address his or her location or otherwise provide any 

evidence suggesting Defendant or the infringement alleged did not occur in this district. 

Case 3:16-cv-00444-GPC-BGS Document 21 Filed 12/06/16 Page 4 of 5
5

16cv444 GPC (BGS)

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

number of cases filed is high, including just those in this district, and the vast majority of 

them appear to be dismissed, but that alone does not establish Plaintiff is engaging in 

abusive litigation tactics.3 It is possible there are simply many people infringing 

Plaintiff’s works and Plaintiff is electing to pursue litigation. Defendant criticizes 

Plaintiff for utilizing the courts to identify anonymous defendants, but based on the 

record before the Court, that is the only way to identify infringers. This in itself may be 

why a significant number of cases are filed. 

Finally, Defendant references cases that have recognized the potential 

embarrassment of this type of litigation being a factor in settlements, however, Defendant 

does not seek a protective order to remain anonymous. Plaintiff has indicated its counsel 

have been instructed never to oppose a defendant’s motion to proceed anonymously and 

would not object to allowing Defendant to remain anonymous through discovery in this 

case. Such a request is not before the Court, but its availability is sufficient to mitigate 

embarrassment to Defendant as a basis for quashing Plaintiff’s subpoena.

Having considered the burden on Defendant in disclosure of his or her name and 

address, the relevance of the information, and Plaintiff’s need for the information, the 

Court finds the subpoena is not unduly burdensome. See Liberty Media Holdings, 2012 

WL 628309, *2. 

III. CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2016

 

3

If Plaintiff were to engage in abusive tactics as to Defendant, Defendant could file an 

appropriate motion to raise the issue.

Case 3:16-cv-00444-GPC-BGS Document 21 Filed 12/06/16 Page 5 of 5