Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01158/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01158-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

16cv1158 H (MDD)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC.,,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE-68.6.254.84,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 16cv1158 H (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR EARLY DISCOVERY

[ECF NO. 5]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery 

filed on May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 5). No Defendant has been named or 

served. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Doe, allegedly a 

subscriber of Cox Communications assigned IP address 68.6.254.84

(“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 London Has Fallen. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6).

Plaintiff contends Defendant used the BitTorrent file distribution network 

Case 3:16-cv-01158-H-MDD Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 9
2

16cv1158 H (MDD)

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

to copy and distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted work through the Internet 

without Plaintiff’s permission. (Id. ¶ 11).

Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct early discovery to learn the identity of

the subscriber of the subject Internet Protocol (“IP”) address from the 

Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) who leased that IP address to its 

subscriber during the relevant period. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order 

permitting it to serve a third party subpoena, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45,

on Cox Communications requiring the ISP to supply the name and address 

of its subscriber to Plaintiff. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Formal discovery generally 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01158-H-MDD Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 9
3

16cv1158 H (MDD)

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

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)). 

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. 

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-01158-H-MDD Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 Page 3 of 9
4

16cv1158 H (MDD)

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

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)). 

With the Complaint and with the instant Motion, Plaintiff filed a 

chart reflecting that the user of the subject IP address engaged in allegedly 

infringing activity from February 4 through February 27, 2016; identified

the ISP as Cox Communications; and located the IP address in San Diego, 

California, within the Southern District of California. (ECF Nos. 1-3; 5-2). 

Critically, Plaintiff also submitted the Declaration of James S. Davis in 

support of this Motion. (ECF No. 5-3). Mr. Davis states, under penalty of 

perjury, that the subject IP address belongs to Cox Communications and 

that he employed certain geolocation technology to locate the subject IP 

address within the Southern District of California. (Id.). 

Plaintiff does not address, however, when the geolocation effort was 

performed. It is most likely that the subscriber is a residential user and the 

Case 3:16-cv-01158-H-MDD Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 Page 4 of 9
5

16cv1158 H (MDD)

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

IP address assigned by ISP is “dynamic.”1 Consequently, it matters when 

the geolocation was performed. In the context of dynamic IP addresses, “a 

person using [an IP] address one month may not have been the same person 

using it the next.” State of Connecticut v. Shields, No. CR06352303, 2007 

WL 1828875 *6 (Conn. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2007). If performed in temporal 

proximity to the offending downloads, the geolocation may be probative of 

the physical location of the subscriber. If not, less so, potentially to the 

point of irrelevance. Here, although Plaintiff does not provide the date that 

geolocation was performed, the Court notes that the alleged infringement 

allegedly occurred between April 20 through 28, 2016, ending just weeks 

before the filing of the Complaint and the instant Motion. (ECF No. 1-3; 5-

2). Accordingly, the geolocation appears to have been conducted close 

enough in time to the allegedly offending behavior to be probative. 

Consequently, Plaintiff has identified the Defendant, at this point, 

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. 

 

1 “Static IP addresses are addresses which remain set for a specific user. . . . 

Dynamic IP addresses are randomly assigned to internet users and change 

frequently. . . . Consequently, for dynamic IP addresses, a single IP address 

may be re-assigned to many different computers in a short period of time.” 

Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332, 356-57 (D. D.C. 

2011)(citations omitted). 

Case 3:16-cv-01158-H-MDD Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 Page 5 of 9
6

16cv1158 H (MDD)

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

B. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant

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 the ISP used by the alleged infringer, where he or she is generally 

located, and the software used to commit the alleged acts of infringement. 

(ECF No. 5-3). 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).

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, 

the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff owns the registered copyright of the 

work that Defendant allegedly copied and distributed using the BitTorrent 

file distribution network and that it did not permit or consent to 

Defendant’s copying or distribution of its work. (ECF No. 1). It appears 

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

withstand a motion to dismiss. 

Case 3:16-cv-01158-H-MDD Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 Page 6 of 9
7

16cv1158 H (MDD)

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

D. Personal Jurisdiction

As discussed above, Plaintiff has sufficiently established that it is 

likely that the Defendant is located within the Southern District of 

California and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Court. 

E. 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 separate state.’” Id.

As discussed above, Defendant is likely to be located in this District 

and the acts complained of also likely occurred here. Accordingly, venue 

appears proper in this District at this time. 

F. Specific Discovery Request

Plaintiff has not provided a proposed subpoena. Plaintiff stated, 

however, that it will seek to obtain only the name and address of the 

subscriber associated with the IP address from Cox Communications. 

The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause to subpoena records 

from Cox Communications identifying the subscriber assigned to the subject 

Case 3:16-cv-01158-H-MDD Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 Page 7 of 9
8

16cv1158 H (MDD)

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

IP address at the identified times. The subpoena must be limited to 

documents identifying the subscriber’s name and address during the 

relevant period. That information should be sufficient for Plaintiff to be 

able to identify and serve Defendant. If Plaintiff is unable to identify and 

serve Defendant after receiving a response to the subpoena, Plaintiff may 

seek leave from the Court to pursue additional discovery. 

G. 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 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, pursuant to and compliant with 

the procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on Cox Communications seeking only 

the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the subject IP address

for the relevant time period. 

2. The subpoena must provide at least forty-five (45) calendar days 

from service to production. Cox Communications may seek to quash or 

modify the subpoena as provided at Rule 45(d)(3). 

Case 3:16-cv-01158-H-MDD Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 Page 8 of 9
9

16cv1158 H (MDD)

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

3. Cox Communications shall notify its subscriber, no later than 

fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena, 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, to move to quash or modify the 

subpoena or file any other responsive pleading. 

4. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with the subpoena upon

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.

5. No other discovery is authorized at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 18, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01158-H-MDD Document 6 Filed 05/18/16 Page 9 of 9