Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01614/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01614-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

15cv1614-BAS (DHB) 

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 

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC, a Texas 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DOE-72.197.35.160, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 15cv1614-BAS (DHB) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

EX PARTE MOTION TO EXPEDITE 

DISCOVERY 

[ECF No. 5] 

 On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC filed an Ex Parte Motion for 

Expedited Discovery. (ECF No. 5.) Because Defendant has not been named or served, 

no opposition or reply briefs have been filed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s 

Motion is GRANTED. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Doe, a subscriber assigned IP 

address 72.197.35.160 (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges a single cause of 

action for direct copyright infringement. Plaintiff asserts that it is the registered 

copyright holder of the motion picture Dallas Buyers Club. (See ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 6.) 

Plaintiff contends Defendant used the BitTorrent file distribution network to copy and 

distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted work through the Internet without Plaintiff’s permission. 

Case 3:15-cv-01614-BAS-DHB Document 6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 8
2 

15cv1614-BAS (DHB) 

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

(ECF No. 1 at ¶ 35.) 

 On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion in which Plaintiff seeks leave to 

take early discovery to learn the identity of Defendant from his or her Internet Service 

Provider (“ISP”), Cox Communications. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order permitting 

it to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Cox Communications for the identity of the account 

holder assigned to Defendant’s IP address, and for further reasonable discovery as may 

be needed. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

 Generally, discovery is not permitted without a court order before the parties have 

conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). 

“[H]owever, in rare cases, courts have made exceptions, permitting limited discovery to 

ensue after filing of the complaint to permit the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts 

necessary to permit service on the defendant.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 

F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th 

Cir. 1980)). Requests for early or expedited discovery are granted upon a showing by the 

moving party of good cause. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 

273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (applying “the conventional standard of good cause in 

evaluating Plaintiff’s request for expedited discovery”). 

 “The Ninth Circuit has held that when the defendants’ identities are unknown at 

the time the complaint is filed, courts may grant plaintiffs leave to take early discovery to 

determine the defendants’ identities ‘unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover 

the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.’” 808 

Holdings, LLC v. Collective of December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12-cv-0186 MMA 

(RBB), 2012 WL 1648838, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (quoting Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 

642). “A district court’s decision to grant discovery to determine jurisdictional facts is a 

matter of discretion.” Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578 (citing Wells Fargo & Co. v. 

Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)). 

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-01614-BAS-DHB Document 6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 8
3 

15cv1614-BAS (DHB) 

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

 District courts apply a three-factor test when considering motions for early 

discovery to identify Doe defendants. Id. at 578-80. First, “the plaintiff should identify 

the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that 

defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court.” Id. at 578. 

Second, the plaintiff “should identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive 

defendant” to ensure that the plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and serve 

process on the defendant. Id. at 579. Third, the “plaintiff should establish to the Court’s 

satisfaction that plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss.” 

Id. (citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642). Further “the plaintiff should file a request for 

discovery with the Court, along with a statement of reasons justifying the specific 

discovery requested as well as identification of a limited number of persons or entities on 

whom discovery process might be served and for which there is a reasonable likelihood 

that the discovery process will lead to identifying information about defendant that would 

make service of process possible.” Id. at 580. 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity 

 First, Plaintiff must identify Defendant with enough specificity to enable the Court 

to determine that Defendant is a real person or entity who would be subject to the 

jurisdiction of this Court. Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578. This Court has previously 

determined that “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.” 808 Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838, at *4 (quoting 

OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. C-11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200 (N.D. 

Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); Pink Lotus Entm’t, LLC v. Does 1-46, No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011 

WL 2470986 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)). 

 Here, Plaintiff has filed a chart that lists the unique IP address corresponding to 

Defendant, and the dates and times of the purportedly infringing activity, as well as the 

Case 3:15-cv-01614-BAS-DHB Document 6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 8
4 

15cv1614-BAS (DHB) 

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

city in which the IP address is located. (ECF No. 1-2.) Consequently, Plaintiff has 

identified Defendant with sufficient specificity. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 

4715200, at *2 (concluding that plaintiff satisfied the first factor by identifying the 

defendants’ IP addresses and by tracing the IP addresses to a point of origin within the 

State of California); Pink Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3 (same). In addition, 

Plaintiff has presented evidence that the identified IP address is physically located in this 

district. (See ECF No. 1-2.) 

B. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant 

 Next, Plaintiff must describe all prior steps it has taken to identify the defendant in 

a good faith effort to locate and serve him or her. See Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579. 

Plaintiff states it has been able to identify much about Defendant, including which ISP 

provider he or she uses, where he or she is generally located, and what software he or she 

used to commit the alleged acts of infringement. (ECF No. 5-1 at 4.) However, Plaintiff 

generally maintains that there are no other practical measures available to determine the 

actual identity of Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff appears to have obtained and investigated 

the available data pertaining to the alleged infringement in a good faith effort to locate 

Defendant. See OpenMind Solutions, 2011 WL 4715200, at *3; MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-

149, 2011 WL 3607666, *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011); Pink Lotus Entm’t, 2011 WL 

2470986, at *3. 

C. Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss 

 “Finally, to be entitled to early discovery, [Plaintiff] must demonstrate that its 

Complaint can withstand a motion to dismiss.” 808 Holdings, 2012 WL 1648838 at *5 

(citing Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579). 

1. Ability to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted 

 In order to establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show: (1) ownership 

of a valid copyright, and (2) that the defendant violated the copyright owner’s exclusive 

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

2004); 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). Here, Plaintiff alleges it owns the registered copyright of the 

Case 3:15-cv-01614-BAS-DHB Document 6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 8
5 

15cv1614-BAS (DHB) 

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

work that Defendant allegedly copied and distributed using the BitTorrent file 

distribution network. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 6.) Plaintiff also alleges it did not permit or 

consent to Defendant’s copying or distribution of its work. (Id. at ¶ 35.) It appears 

Plaintiff has stated a prima facie claim for copyright infringement that can withstand a 

motion to dismiss. 

2. Personal Jurisdiction 

 Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdictional facts. See Columbia Ins. 

Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578. Plaintiff’s motion does not discuss whether this Court has 

personal jurisdiction over Defendant. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates that 

Defendant is located in this judicial district. (See ECF No. 1-2 (showing the IP address 

associated with Defendant is located in San Diego). The Complaint also alleges that 

Defendant’s acts of copyright infringement occurred using an IP address traced to a 

physical location in this district, and that Defendant is believed to reside in California. 

(ECF No. 1. at ¶ 3, 14.) 

 Therefore, at this early juncture, it appears Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to 

show it can likely withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because 

Defendant’s IP address was traced to a location in this district. See 808 Holdings, 2012 

WL 1648838 at *6-7. 

2. Venue 

 “The venue of suits for infringement of copyright is not determined by the general 

provision governing suits in the federal district courts, rather by the venue provision of 

the Copyright Act.” Goldberg v. Cameron, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2007) 

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a); Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174, 176 

(1923)). “In copyright infringement actions, venue is proper ‘in the district in which the 

defendant or his agent resides or may be found.’” Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & 

Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a)). “The 

Ninth Circuit interprets this statutory provision to allow venue ‘in any judicial district in 

which the defendant would be amendable to personal jurisdiction if the district were a 

Case 3:15-cv-01614-BAS-DHB Document 6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 8
6 

15cv1614-BAS (DHB) 

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

separate state.’” Id.

 Plaintiff does not address venue in its motion. In the Complaint, however, Plaintiff 

alleges venue is proper because although Defendant’s true identity is unknown, 

Defendant is believed to reside (and therefore can be found in this district), and a 

substantial part of the infringing acts complained of occurred in this district. (ECF No. 1 

at ¶ 3, 13.) Defendant appears to have an IP address in this district. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s Complaint can likely survive a motion to dismiss. 

D. Specific Discovery Request 

Here, Plaintiff has not provided a proposed subpoena or proposed discovery 

requests. However, Plaintiff indicates that it will seek to obtain the true name, address, 

telephone number and email address of the subscriber associated with Defendant’s IP 

address from Cox Communications. Plaintiff also requests leave to conduct a deposition 

of the subscriber identified by Cox Communications if needed to find the true identity of 

the actual Defendant. 

 The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause to subpoena records from Cox 

Communication for the identity of the subscriber assigned to Defendant’s IP address. 

However, the subpoena to Cox Communications should be limited to a request for the 

subscriber’s name and address. That information should be sufficient for Plaintiff to be 

able to identify and serve Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff is not permitted to request the 

subscriber’s telephone number or email address. Further, once Plaintiff is able to identify 

and serve Defendant, the need for early discovery ceases. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

request for leave to conduct further discovery, including a deposition of the subscriber is 

denied at this time. If Plaintiff is unable to identify and serve Defendant after receiving a 

response to the subpoena to Cox Communications, Plaintiff may seek leave from the 

Court to pursue additional discovery. 

E. Cable Privacy Act 

 Finally, the Court must consider the requirements of the Cable Privacy Act, 47 

U.S.C. § 551. The Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing personally 

Case 3:15-cv-01614-BAS-DHB Document 6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 6 of 8
7 

15cv1614-BAS (DHB) 

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

identifiable information regarding subscribers without the prior written or electronic 

consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). A cable operator, however, may 

disclose such information if the disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable 

operator provides the subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). The 

ISP that Plaintiff intends to subpoena in this case is a cable operator within the meaning 

of the Act. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited 

Discovery is GRANTED, as follows: 

 1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena on Defendant’s ISP, Cox Communications, 

seeking the name and address of the subscriber assigned to Defendant’s IP address. 

 2. The subpoena must provide a minimum of forty-five (45) days notice before 

any production and shall be limited to one category of documents identifying the 

particular subscriber listed on Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1-2.) The 

requested information should be limited to the name and address of the subscriber. Cox 

Communications may seek a protective order if it determines there is a legitimate basis 

for doing so. 

 3. Cox Communications shall have fourteen (14) calendar days after service of 

the subpoena to notify the subscriber that his or her identity has been subpoenaed by 

Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall then have thirty (30) 

calendar days from the date of the notice to seek a protective order or file any other 

responsive pleading. 

 4. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with any subpoena obtained and 

served pursuant to this Order to Cox Communications. Cox Communications, in turn, 

must provide a copy of this Order along with the required notice to the subscriber whose 

identity is sought pursuant to this Order. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-01614-BAS-DHB Document 6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 7 of 8
8 

15cv1614-BAS (DHB) 

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. No deposition or other discovery is authorized at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 19, 2015 

Case 3:15-cv-01614-BAS-DHB Document 6 Filed 08/20/15 Page 8 of 8