Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01525/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01525-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AF HOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12cv01525 LAB(RBB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

TAKE EXPEDITED DISCOVERY [ECF

NO. 3]

Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Expedited

Discovery was filed on June 28, 2012, along with the Declaration of

Peter Hansmeier and an exhibit [ECF No. 3]. Because no Defendant

has been named or served, no opposition or reply briefs have been

filed. For the reasons discussed below, the Ex Parte Application

is DENIED.

I. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC ("AF Holdings")

filed a Complaint with attachments [ECF No. 1]. The Plaintiff

asserts copyright infringement claims against John Doe

("Defendant"). (Compl. 7-10, ECF No. 1.) Defendant allegedly

/ / /

1 12cv0525 LAB(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01525-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 07/25/12 Page 1 of 5
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

copied and distributed a video that AF Holdings purports to be the

registered owner of, and hold the exclusive rights to. (Id. at 1-

2.) First, the Plaintiff alleges a claim for direct copyright

infringement, stating that Defendant reproduced and distributed the

copyrighted video through the Internet without Plaintiff's

authorization. (Id. at 1, 7.) Second, AF Holdings pleads

contributory copyright infringement, asserting that Defendant

illegally obtained the video and assisted others in doing the same. 

(Id. at 1, 8.) Third, Plaintiff contends Defendant was negligent

in failing to adequately secure his or her Internet access to

prevent its unlawful use by others. (Id. at 9.) 

Eight days after filing the Complaint, on June 28, 2012, the

Plaintiff filed this Ex Parte Application seeking leave to take

expedited discovery. (Pl.'s Ex Parte Appl. Leave Take Expedited

Disc. 1, ECF No. 3.) The Plaintiff seeks permission to take "early

discovery" from the Doe Defendant's Internet Service Provider

("ISP"), Cox Communications, to ascertain the Defendant's identity. 

(Id. at 1-2; see id. Attach. #1 Decl. Hansmeier 10 ("Plaintiff

needs early discovery from the ISPs, so that the name and address

of the accused infringer can be obtained by Plaintiff . . . .").) 

II. 

THE BASIS FOR AN EX PARTE MOTION

“Ex parte applications are a form of emergency relief that

will only be granted upon an adequate showing of good cause or

irreparable injury to the party seeking relief.” K. Clark v. Time

Warner Cable, No. CV 07-1797-VBF(RCx), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

100716, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2007) (citing Mission Power Eng’g

Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal.

2 12cv0525 LAB(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01525-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 07/25/12 Page 2 of 5
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

1995)). The moving party must be “without fault” in creating the

need for ex parte relief or establish that the “crisis

[necessitating the ex parte application] occurred as a result of

excusable neglect.” Id. An ex parte application seeks to bypass

the regular noticed motion procedure; consequently, the party

requesting ex parte relief must establish a basis for giving the

application preference. See id. United States District Court

Southern District of California Civil Local Rule 7.1(e) outlines

the procedures for filing regular motions. Kashani v. Adams, No.

08cv0268 JM(AJB), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34153, at *4 (S.D. Cal.

Apr. 21, 2009) (citing S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(e)). Ex parte

proceedings are reserved for emergency circumstances. Id.

Plaintiff's pending Ex Parte Application fails this test. See

Mission Power Eng’g Co., 883 F. Supp. at 492 (providing that many

ex parte motions are denied because the papers do not demonstrate

that emergency relief is necessary). AF Holdings does not discuss

whether its request is a proper subject for ex parte consideration

or why the regular noticed motion procedures must be bypassed. See

id. The Plaintiff generally submits that ex parte relief is

appropriate because without knowledge of Defendant's identity, the

parties cannot adequately confer. (Pl.'s Ex Parte Appl. Leave Take

Expedited Disc. 10-12, ECF No. 3.) Also, in support of its

argument addressing the merits of whether it should be given leave

to serve discovery, Plaintiff states that there is a risk that the

ISP will destroy the relevant logs before the parties conduct a

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. (Id. at 10 ("The

information is facing imminent destruction . . . .").

/ / /

3 12cv0525 LAB(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01525-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 07/25/12 Page 3 of 5
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

Even construing Plaintiff's assertion in support of an attempt

to justify the ex parte request, emergency consideration is not

necessary. AF Holdings relies on the Declaration of Peter

Hansmeier, a technician at a company that monitors and documents

the Internet-based piracy of its clients' copyrighted creative

content. (Id. Attach. #1 Decl. Hansmeier.) Hansmeier submits that

ISPs keep track of the IP addresses assigned to their subscribers. 

(Id. at 9.) "ISPs have different policies regarding the length of

time they preserve information about what IP address was associated

with a given subscriber at a given date and time." (Id.) The

Plaintiff also attaches copies of various ISPs' subpoena compliance

policies. (Id. Attach. #2 Ex. B, at 2-20.) Although it attaches

the policies of Comcast and Time Warner Cable & Road Runner, only

Cox Communications, this Defendant's ISP, is relevant. Cox's

records retention policy for subscriber information is three years. 

(Id. at 16.) Therefore, Plaintiff's misrepresentation that the

subscriber information records are "facing imminent destruction" is

disingenuous and may run afoul of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. (Pl.'s Ex Parte Appl. Leave Take Early Disc. 10.)

 III. 

CONCLUSION

AF Holdings has failed to demonstrate that its request should

be considered on an ex parte basis. "Lawyers must understand that

filing an ex parte motion, whether of the pure or hybrid type, is

the forensic equivalent of standing in a crowded theater and

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

4 12cv0525 LAB(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01525-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 07/25/12 Page 4 of 5
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

shouting, 'Fire!' There had better be a fire." Mission Power

Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. at 492. 

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application [ECF No. 4] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2012 

RUBEN B. BROOKS

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Burns

 All Parties of Record

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\AF HOLDINGS1525\Order re Ex Parte Appl. Leave Take Expedited Disc.wpd 5 12cv0525 LAB(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01525-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 07/25/12 Page 5 of 5