Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02452/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02452-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

16-cv-2452-AJB (WVG)

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

LHF PRODUCTIONS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE-72.197.240.150,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-2452-AJB (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO CONDUCT 

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

[ECF No. 2]

Plaintiff LHF Productions Inc. (“Plaintiff”), which claims to hold the copyright on 

the movie London Has Fallen, Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1, moves ex parte for an order 

permitting it to conduct discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference and serve a subpoena 

on Cox Communications to ascertain the identity of an unknown individual who allegedly 

has infringed its copyright by copying and distributing the movie over the internet. For the 

reasons that follow, and on the terms specified in this order, the Court grants the motion.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on September 29, 2016 asserting a single claim of

copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The instant motion was later that 

same day. No defendant has been served. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that between 

July 30, 2016 and September 10, 2016 the Doe defendant used the peer-to-peer BitTorrent 

distribution network to copy and distribute the work over the internet without Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:16-cv-02452-AJB-WVG Document 7 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 6
2

16-cv-2452-AJB (WVG)

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

authorization. Id. ¶ 11, 34. Data provided by an investigator identifies the Internet Protocol 

(“IP”) address associated with the infringing activity as 72.197.240.150 and San Diego as 

the location of the infringing activity. Declaration of James S. Davis (“Davis Decl.”) ¶ 9, 

ECF No. 2-4. Plaintiff’s attorney has verified the location and the ISP provider by 

“personally enter[ing] [the IP address] into 3 separate websites that contain a function for 

determining the location of an IP Address.” Id. ¶¶ 8-10. These websites are 

www.iplocation.net, www.ipfingerprints.com, and www.ip-addresss.org.” Id. ¶ 8. 

According to counsel, the geolocation trackers used operate “to a reasonable degree of 

certainty.” Id. ¶ 9. The geolaction trackers identify Cox Communications as the Internet 

Service Provider (“ISP”) associated with that IP address. Id. ¶ 10. 

A party ordinarily may not seek discovery from any source prior to the Rule 26(f) 

conference. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(d)(1). The court, however, may order expedited

discovery, id., and courts within this circuit enter such orders on a showing of good cause, 

see Semitol, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002); 

Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-68.8.213.203, 2015 WL 9026554, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 

2015). One situation in which early discovery may be necessary are cases in which the 

defendant’s identity cannot be determined at the time the action is commenced. The Ninth 

Circuit has held that “[i]n such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity 

through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery 

would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other 

grounds.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Courts accordingly have 

required a party to meet four requirements before granting leave to use expedited discovery 

to uncover the identity of an unknown defendant: (1) The party must “identify the missing 

party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that the defendant is a 

real person or entity who could be sued in federal court;” (2) the party must demonstrate 

that it has made good faith attempts to identify and serve the defendant; (3) the party must 

show that the lawsuit could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) the party must show that 

the discovery is reasonably likely to lead to identifying information that will permit service 

Case 3:16-cv-02452-AJB-WVG Document 7 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 6
3

16-cv-2452-AJB (WVG)

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

of process. Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999);

Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Doe-73.202.228.252, 2016 WL 1138960, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

March 23, 2016); Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Doe, 2015 WL 4451372, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 

20, 2015). Plaintiff has met each of these requirements.

The plaintiff must first identify the missing defendant with sufficient specificity so

that the court can determine whether the defendant is a real person or entity who can be 

sued in federal court. “[A] plaintiff identifies Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by 

providing the unique IP addresses assigned to an individual defendant on the day of the 

allegedly infringing conduct, and by using ‘geolocation technology’ to trace the IP 

addresses to a physical point of origin.” Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-68.101.166.122, 

2016 WL 2343912, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2016). Here, Plaintiff has identified the unique 

IP address associated with the allegedly infringing conduct and the dates of the infringing 

conduct. Compl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff has also used “well accepted geolocation technology” to 

trace the IP address to this judicial district, id. ¶ 13,

1

and has taken measures to verify this 

data, Davis Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. Plaintiff has therefore provided the Court with sufficient basis to 

conclude that the defendant is a real person or entity who may be sued in federal court.

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that it has made good faith efforts to identify 

and serve the defendant. Plaintiff has explained the steps that it has taken to uncover the IP 

address allegedly used to infringe its copyright and has also asserted that the requested 

discovery is the only means available to it of obtaining information that may lead to the 

identification of the Doe defendant. Id. ¶¶ 5-10. Although not discussed in Plaintiff’s 

moving papers, the Court notes that the Cable Privacy Act generally prohibits cable 

operators from disclosing personally identifiable information concerning subscribers 

without the prior consent of the subscriber unless the disclosure is made pursuant to a court 

 

1 By signing the complaint, counsel for LHF has represented that the factual contentions 

therein, including LHF’s use of geolocation technology to link the IP address to this 

district, “have evidentiary support.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11(b)(2). 

Case 3:16-cv-02452-AJB-WVG Document 7 Filed 10/24/16 Page 3 of 6
4

16-cv-2452-AJB (WVG)

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

order and the cable operator provides the subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 

551(c); see QOTD Film Invest. Ltd. v. Doe-72.220.214.236, 2016 WL 1324424, at *4 (S.D. 

Cal. April 5, 2016). Plaintiff accordingly is unlikely to be able to obtain the information it 

seeks without assistance from the Court.

Plaintiff is also required to show that the complaint could survive a motion to 

dismiss. Plaintiff’s complaint in this case asserts a single claim of direct copyright 

infringement. To establish a prima facie case, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) ownership of 

a valid copyright, and (2) that Defendant violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights 

under the Copyright Act. See Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(citing 17 U.S.C. § 501(a)). Plaintiff purports to hold rights to the copyrighted work at 

issue, Compl. ¶ 5, and alleges that between July 30, 2016 and September 10, 2016, an 

individual or entity using IP address 68.6.254.27 infringed its copyright by copying and 

distributing the work over the internet without its permission or consent, id. ¶¶ 4, 11, 34. 

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has alleged the prima facie elements of direct 

copyright infringement. Further, by alleging that the defendant is believed to reside and to 

have committed the infringing acts in this district, id. ¶¶ 3, 14, Plaintiff has made a plausible 

showing that this Court may establish personal jurisdiction and that venue is proper. The 

Court finds that Plaintiff would likely survive a motion to dismiss.

Finally, Plaintiff must show that the discovery sought is reasonably likely to lead to 

information that will permit Plaintiff to identify and serve the John Doe defendant. Plaintiff

requests permission to use a Rule 45 subpoena to ascertain the identity of the subscriber 

associated with IP address 72.197.240.150 during the period of the allegedly infringing 

conduct. Plaintiff contends that the “consistency of observed activity ... indicates that the 

defendant is an identifiable and singular person and likely the primary subscriber of the IP 

address or someone who resides with the subscriber and is known to the subscriber, as a 

such activity indicates the defendant is an authorized user of the IP address with consistent 

and permissive access.” Compl. ¶ 19. Plaintiff has shown that the discovery sought is 

reasonably likely to lead to the missing defendant.

Case 3:16-cv-02452-AJB-WVG Document 7 Filed 10/24/16 Page 4 of 6
5

16-cv-2452-AJB (WVG)

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

CONCLUSION

Finding good cause, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery and 

orders that:

a. Plaintiff may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Cox Communications seeking only 

the true name and address of the subscriber associated with the IP address 

72.197.240.150 during the time period of the allegedly infringing conduct

described in Plaintiff’s complaint. 

b. Plaintiff may not use information disclosed in response to the subpoena for 

any purpose other than the protection of its rights in this litigation.

c. Within fourteen calendar days after service of the subpoena, Cox 

Communications shall notify the subscriber that its identifying information

has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been 

subpoenaed shall have thirty calendar days from the date of such notice to 

challenge the disclosure of its information.

d. If Cox Communications wishes to move to quash the subpoena, it shall do so 

before the return date of the subpoena. The return date of the subpoena must 

allow for at least forty-five days between service and production. If a motion 

to quash or other customer challenge is brought, Cox Communications shall 

preserve the information sought by Plaintiff in the subpoena pending 

resolution of such motion or challenge.

e. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on Cox Communications along with 

its subpoena. Cox Communications, in turn, must provide a copy of this order 

along with the required notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought.

f. Plaintiff shall redact and omit from all future filings all information that 

identifies the subscriber personally, to include the subscriber’s name and 

address, unless and until the subscriber becomes a defendant in the above 

captioned lawsuit. Plaintiff shall refer to the subscriber generally in any 

fillings and attach a separate exhibit that includes the subscriber’s identifying 

Case 3:16-cv-02452-AJB-WVG Document 7 Filed 10/24/16 Page 5 of 6
6

16-cv-2452-AJB (WVG)

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

information. Any attached exhibit containing the personal identification of the 

subscriber shall be filed under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02452-AJB-WVG Document 7 Filed 10/24/16 Page 6 of 6