Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04178/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04178-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 All co-defendants have been dismissed. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRANT TAILLEFER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C03-4178 BZ

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST

DEFENDANT TAILLEFER

Before me is plaintiff DIRECTV’s motion for default

judgment against defendant Grant Taillefer.1 A hearing was

held on February 2, 2005. Defendant did not file any

opposition to plaintiff’s motion, nor did he appear at the

hearing. As defendant has not consented to the

jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, this

matter will be reassigned to a district judge with the

following report and recommendation regarding default

judgment. 

On September 12, 2003, plaintiff filed this action

against defendant and four other individuals alleging

violations of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as

Case 3:03-cv-04178-CRB Document 50 Filed 02/25/05 Page 1 of 6
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

amended, 47 U.S.C. section 605, as well as the Electronic

Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), 18 U.S.C. sections

2510-2521. Plaintiff effected service of process against

defendant Taillefer on December 1, 2003. After defendant

failed to respond to the complaint, and upon plaintiff’s

request, the Clerk of this court entered his default under

Rule 55(a) on February 19, 2004. On February 26, 2004,

Chief Judge Patel issued an Order of Limited Assignment of

all DIRECTV cases pending in the Northern District to Judge

Ware. See February 26, 2004 Order. Pursuant to Chief

Judge Patel’s Order, I issued a stay in all DIRECTV cases

assigned to me, which stay was lifted upon issuance of

Judge Ware’s Order Regarding Limited Assignment to

Determine Issues Regarding Joinder of Defendants and

Showing Needed to Establish a Prima Facie Case Under

Statutory Claims. In re DIRECTV, Inc., No. C02-5912 JW,

2004 WL 2645971 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2004). Defendant

failed to appear at the August 30, 2004 status conference. 

On November 12, 2004 plaintiff filed a motion for default

judgment against defendant. 

 Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), a court may enter default

judgment against a party when default has already been

entered by the Clerk. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). A court

may not enter a default judgment against an unrepresented

minor, an incompetent person, or a person in military

service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); 50 App. U.S.C. §

521. The defendant satisfies this requirement. See

Declaration of Sandeep J. Shah in Support of Plaintiff

Case 3:03-cv-04178-CRB Document 50 Filed 02/25/05 Page 2 of 6
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

DIRECTV, Inc.’s Motion for Default Judgment Against

Defendant Grant Taillefer (“Shah Decl”) ¶ 8.

By his default, defendant is deemed to have admitted

the well-pleaded averments of the complaint except for

those regarding the amount of damages. Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(d); TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915,

917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages against defendant

for violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2511(1)(a). Section

2511(1)(a) of the ECPA provides that “any person who

intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or

procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to

intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication . .

. ” commits a federal offense. 18 U.S.C. § 2511. Section

2520(a) creates a private right of action for any person,

including a corporation, “whose wire, oral, or electronic

communication is intercepted.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510(6),

2520(a). Ninth Circuit case law holds that satellite

transmissions are electronic communications protected under

the ECPA. U.S. v. Lande, 968 F.2d 907, 909 -10 (9th Cir.

1992) (“A person who views satellite television programming

by use of a modified descrambler and a satellite dish

‘intentionally intercepts’ the satellite television signal,

which is an ‘electronic communication.’”).

Having reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, I find that the

allegations are sufficiently well-pled to establish

defendant’s liability under section 2511(1)(a). Plaintiff

alleges that it is “the nation’s leading direct broadcast

Case 3:03-cv-04178-CRB Document 50 Filed 02/25/05 Page 3 of 6
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

satellite system, delivering over 225 channels of

television and other programming to more than 10 million

homes and businesses in the United States.” Compl., ¶ 1. 

Defendant allegedly “purchased and used illegally modified

DIRECTV Access Cards and other devices (‘Pirate Access

Devices’) that are designed to permit viewing of DIRECTV’s

television programming without authorization by or payment

to DIRECTV.” Compl., ¶ 4. In addition, plaintiff claims

that defendant “intentionally intercepted, endeavored to

intercept, or procured other persons to intercept or

endeavor to intercept, DIRECTV’s satellite transmission of

television programming, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2511(1)(a).” Compl., ¶ 21. Upon default these well-pled

allegations are deemed admitted.

The only issue that remains is the determination of

damages. Under section 2520(c)(2) the court may assess as

damages “the greater of (A) the sum of actual damages

suffered by the plaintiff . . . ; or (B) statutory damages

of whichever is the greater of $100 a day for each day of

violation or $10,000.” 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2). The court

has discretion under section 2520 to award damages as

authorized by the statute or to award no damages at all. 

In re DIRECTV, Inc., 2004 WL 2645971 at *11; DIRECTV v.

Brown, 371 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004); Dorris v.

Absher, 179 F.3d 420, 429-30 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing

Reynolds v. Spears, 93 F.3d 428, 435 (8th Cir. 1996)). 

However, the court may not award an amount falling between

those two choices. In re DIRECTV, Inc., 2004 WL 2645971 at

Case 3:03-cv-04178-CRB Document 50 Filed 02/25/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

*16; DIRECTV v. Hedger, No. 03-CV-733, 2004 WL 1396274 at

*2 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2004). 

Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in statutory damages. Having

reviewed plaintiff’s application and supporting

declarations, I recommend that plaintiff recover statutory

damages in the amount of $10,000 against defendant

Taillefer and post-judgment interest thereon pursuant to 28

U.S.C. section 1961. Plaintiff also seeks $2,265.41 in

attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount yet to be

determined. Attorneys’ fees and costs are recoverable

under section 2520. 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3). In support of

its request, plaintiff submitted time records demonstrating

that it reasonably incurred $1,500.41 in attorneys’ fees

for time expended in this case prior to the hearing. Shah

Decl. ¶¶ 10-12. The hourly rate charged by plaintiff’s

counsel is also reasonable. See Shah Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. E. I

further recommend awarding counsel an additional 1.5 hours

for preparing for and attending the hearing, which lasted

less than ten minutes. Based on counsel’s hourly rate,

this amounts to an additional $382.50 in attorneys’ fees. 

I therefore recommend that plaintiff recover a total of

$1,882.91 in attorneys’ fees.

For the foregoing reasons, I RECOMMEND that judgment

be entered in the amount of $11,882.91 against defendant

Taillefer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2520 and that post-

///

///

///

Case 3:03-cv-04178-CRB Document 50 Filed 02/25/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

judgment interest be awarded thereon, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

section 1961. 

February 25, 2005

 /s/ Bernard Zimmerman

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\DIRECTV\TAILLEFER\default.wpd

Case 3:03-cv-04178-CRB Document 50 Filed 02/25/05 Page 6 of 6