Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02017/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02017-0/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

cal 

1 07cv2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware

Corporation; SONY BMG MUSIC

ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware General

Partnership; ARISTA RECORDS LLC, A

Delaware Limited Liability Company; and

BMG MUSIC, a New York General

Partnership,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07CV2017 DMS (AJB)

Order Granting Ex Parte 

Application For Leave To 

Take Immediate Discovery

[Doc. No. 3]

On October 18, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Doe Defendant for copyright

infringement, alleging that Defendant used an online media distribution system to download and

distribute copyrighted works. Plaintiffs do not know the name of the Doe Defendant, but have identified

the unique Internet Protocol address assigned to Defendant at the date and time of the alleged infringing

activity and have also identified the Internet Service Provider that provided Defendant with internet

access at the date and time of the alleged infringing activity. Simultaneous to their complaint, Plaintiffs

have filed an Ex Parte Application seeking leave of the Court to serve immediate discovery on the

Internet Service Provider, San Diego State University, to identify Defendant. Plaintiffs intend to serve a

subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on San Diego State University seeking

Case 3:07-cv-02017-DMS-AJB Document 4 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 3
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 07cv2017

documents that identify Defendant's true name, current and permanent addresses and telephone

numbers, e-mail addresses, and Media Access Control addresses.

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), discovery does not commence until

parties to an action meet and confer as prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), unless by

court order or agreement of the parties. A court order permitting early discovery may be appropriate

“where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the

prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276

(N.D.Cal.2002).

After reviewing Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to take discovery, the declaration of Carlos

Linares, and the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiffs'

Application, based on: (1) the allegations of copyright infringement contained in Plaintiffs complaint;

(2) the danger that San Diego State University will not preserve the information that Plaintiffs seek; (3)

the narrow tailoring of the discovery request so as not to exceed the minimum information required to

advance this lawsuit without prejudicing the Defendant; and (4) the Court's finding that the expedited

discovery requested will substantially contribute to moving this case forward. Furthermore, without such

discovery, Plaintiffs cannot identify the Doe Defendant, and thus cannot pursue their lawsuit to protect

their copyrighted works from infringement. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs may serve immediate discovery on San Diego State University to obtain

the identity of the Doe Defendant by serving a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 45 that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe

Defendant, including the name, current and permanent addresses and telephone

numbers, e-mail addresses, and Media Access Control addresses for the Defendant.

2. Any information disclosed to Plaintiffs in response to the subpoena may be used

by Plaintiffs solely for the purpose of protecting Plaintiffs' rights under the

Copyright Act.

3. If San Diego State University and/or the Defendant wishes to move to quash the

subpoena, they shall do so before the return date of the subpoena. If such a motion

Case 3:07-cv-02017-DMS-AJB Document 4 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 3
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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\UMG\07cv2017.UMG.v.Doe.Order.ExParteAppDisc.wpd 3 07cv2017

is brought, San Diego State University shall nonetheless preserve the information

sought in the subpoena pending resolution of such motion.

4. Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this Order to San Diego State University when

the subpoena is served.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2007

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-02017-DMS-AJB Document 4 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 3