Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00031/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00031-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

FILED 

MAY 0 3 2018 

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

sour ERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP 

address 107.135.66.151, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 18cv31-LAB(KSC) 

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR LEA VE TO 

SERVE A THIRD PARTY 

SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE 

26(t) CONFERENCE 

[Doc. No. 5] 

18 Before the Court is plaintiffs Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a Third Party 

19 Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(:f) Conference. [Doc. No. 5.] No opposition or reply briefs 

20 have been filed or considered by the Court, because defendant has not been fully identified 

21 and has not been served with a summons or the Complaint. Thus far, defendant has only 

22 been identified as the "subscriber assigned IP address 107.135.66.151." [Doc. No. 1.] For 

23 the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that plaintiffs Ex Parte Application must be 

24 GRANTED. 

25 Background 

26 Plaintiff filed a Complaint against defendant alleging a single cause of action for 

27 direct copyright infringement. [Doc. No. 1, at pp. 6-7]. In the Complaint, plaintiff asserts 

28 ownership of copyrights for adult motion pictures that are distributed through adult 

18cv31-LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00031-LAB-KSC Document 8 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
1 websites. (Doc. No. 1, at p. 1, 6.] The Complaint alleges that the defendant, who is only 

2 identified thus far as IP address 107.135.66.151, used the BitTorrent file distribution 

3 network to copy and distribute plaintiff's copyrighted works over the Internet without 

4 plaintiff's permission. [Doc. No. 1, at pp. 2-5.] The Complaint further alleges that 

5 defendant "downloaded, copied, and distributed a complete copy" of plaintiff's 

6 copyrighted movies "without authorization." [Doc. No. 1, at p. 5.] According to the 

7 Complaint, defendant's "infringement is continuous and ongoing" and the lawsuit is the 

8 only way to effectively prevent defendant from infringing the copyrights. [Doc. No. 1, at 

9 p. 6.] 

10 The Complaint explains that "BitTorrent is a system designed to quickly distribute 

11 large files over the Internet. Instead of downloading a file, such as a movie, from a single 

12 source, BitTorrent users are able to connect to the computers of other BitTorrent users in 

13 order to simultaneously do\vnload and upload pieces of the film from and to other users." 

14 [Doc. No. 1, at p. 4.] "To use BitTorrent to download a movie, the user has to obtain a 

15 'torrent' file for that movie, from a torrent website. The torrent file contains instructions 

16 for identifying the Internet addresses of other BitTorrent users who have the movie, and 

17 for downloading the movie from those users. Once a user downloads all of the pieces of 

18 that movie from the other BitTorrent users. , the movie is automaticallv ,,, reassembled into its 

19 original form, ready for playing." [Doc. No. 1, at p. 4.] 

20 Discussion 

21 In the Ex Parte Application, plaintiff seeks leave to serve limited, immediate 

22 discovery on defendant's Internet Service Provider ("ISP"), AT&T Inc. (AT&T U-verse), 

23 so that plaintiff may learn defendant's true identity. [Doc. No. 5, at p. 7]. Specifically, 

24 plaintiff seeks an order permitting it to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T Inc. (AT&T 

25 U-verse) to obtain the name and address of the account holder assigned to Internet Protocol 

26 ("IP") address 107.135.66.151. [Doc. No. 5, at p. 7.] 

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

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

2 

l 8cv3 l -LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00031-LAB-KSC Document 8 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
1 the Ninth Circuit, exceptions to requests for early discovery have generally been 

2 disfavored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). However, "situations 

3 arise, such as the present, where the identity of alleged defendants will not be known prior 

4 to the filing of a complaint. In such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an 

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

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

7 other grounds." Id. 

8 "[S]ome limiting principals should apply to the determination of whether discovery 

9 to uncover the identity of a defendant is warranted." Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 

10 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Such early discovery should be limited "to ensure 

11 that this unusual procedure will only be employed in cases where the plaintiff has in good 

12 faith exhausted traditional avenues for identifying a civil defendant pre-service" and to 

13 "prevent use of this method to harass or intimidate." Id. "First, the plaintiff should identify 

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

15 defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court." Id. Second, the 

16 plaintiff "should identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant" to ensure 

1 7 that the plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and serve process on the defendant. 

18 Id. at 579. Third, the "plaintiff should establish to the Court's satisfaction that plaintiffs 

19 suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss." Id. "Thus, plaintiff must 

20 make some showing that an act giving rise to civil liability actually occurred and that the 

21 discovery is aimed at revealing specific identifying features of the person or entity who 

22 committed that act." Id. at 580. 

23 "Lastly, the plaintiff should file a request for discovery with the Court, along with a 

24 statement of reasons justifying the specific discovery requested as well as identification of 

25 a limited number of persons or entities on whom discovery process might be served and 

26 for which there is a reasonable likelihood that the discovery process will lead to identifying 

27 information about defendant that would make service of process possible." Id. 

28 I I I 

3 

18cv31-LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00031-LAB-KSC Document 8 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
1 A. Identification of the Defendant with Sufficient Specificitv. 

2 In support of the Ex Parte Application, plaintiff submitted two relevant declarations. 

3 First, a Declaration by Tobias Fieser states that he is employed by IPP International UG 

4 (IPP), a forensic investigation corporation that provides services to copyright owners by 

5 tracking, monitoring, and detecting copyright infringement over the internet. According 

6 to Mr. Fieser, IPP monitors the BitTorrent file distribution network for the presence of 

7 plaintiffs copyrighted works. [Doc. No. 5-2, at p. 2.] Based on his review of forensic 

8 activity records and other forensic evidence, Mr. Fieser states that he was able to determine 

9 that defendant's IP address was used to distribute "multiple pieces" of plaintiffs 

10 copyrighted movies. [Doc. No. 5-2, at pp. 2-3.] Each of these pieces was recorded in 

11 digital files that are identified by a "Crypotographic Hash Value." [Doc. No. 5-2, at pp. 2-

12 3.] Software was then used to re-assemble and analyze the digital files to confirm that the 

13 files being distributed by defendant's IP address were pieces of plaintiffs copyrighted 

14 movies. [Doc. No. 5-2, at p. 3.] According to Mr. Fieser's Declaration, Exhibit A to the 

15 Complaint lists digital files of plaintiffs copyrighted works that were distributed using the 

16 defendant's IP address. [Doc. No. 5-2, at p. 2.] It appears that Exhibit A also lists the dates 

17 these digital files were distributed using the defendant's IP address and indicates that the 

18 defendant's IP address is located in San Marcos, California. [Doc. No. 1-2, at pp. 1-2.] 

19 Second, a Declaration by Susan B. Stalzer states that she is plaintiffs employee and 

20 is familiar with plaintiffs copyrighted movies. She was charged with reviewing the digital 

21 files enumerated on Exhibit A that were collected by IPP during its forensic investigation 

22 to verify that the files did indeed contain plaintiffs copyrighted movies. Fallowing this 

23 verification process, she used the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) to 

24 confirm that defendant's IP address is associated with AT&T U-verse. [Doc. No. 5-3, at 

25 p. 2-3.] 

26 Third, the Complaint alleges that geolocation technology by Maxmind Inc., "an 

27 industry-leading provider of IP address intelligence and online fraud detection tools," was 

28 used to determine that "defendant's IP address traced to a physical address in this District." 

4 

l 8cv3 l -LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00031-LAB-KSC Document 8 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
1 [Doc. No. 1, at p. 2.] "Some district courts in the Ninth Circuit have determined that a 

2 plaintiff identifies Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by providing the unique IP 

3 address assigned to an individual defendant on the day of the alleged infringing conduct, 

4 and by using 'geolocation technology' to trace the IP address to a physical point of origin." 

5 See, e.g., Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-19, 2012 WL 2152061, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 

6 2012), and cases cited therein. 

7 Based on the allegations in the Complaint and the information provided in the 

8 supporting Declarations summarized above, the Court finds that plaintiff identified the 

9 defendant with enough specificity so that the Court may determine that defendant is a 

10 person who could be sued in Federal Court. Plaintiff provided the Court with information 

11 about infringing activity tied to defendant's IP address and specific dates and times for 

12 such activity. 

13 B. Previous Steps Taken to Identifv Defendant. 

14 In its Ex Parte Application, defendant has represented that it has consulted with 

15 computer investigators and cyber security consultants and has searched sources available 

16 to the public but is unable to obtain the name and address of the subscriber of IP address 

17 107.135.66.151 for the time period in question. Through publicly available data, plaintiff 

18 is only able to connect a particular IP address to infringing activity on specified dates; 

19 identify the city and state associated with that IP address; and discover the ISP who is 

20 associated with that IP address. [Doc. No. 5, at p. 14.] Without a subpoena for the name 

21 and address of the subscriber to the IP address in question, plaintiff will be unable to 

22 identify and serve defendant. [Doc. No. 5, at p. 18.] 

23 The Court is also aware that the requirements of the Cable Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C. 

24 § 551, generally prohibit cable operators from disclosing personally identifiable 

25 information regarding subscribers without the prior written or electronic consent of the 

26 subscriber. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(l). A cable operator, however, may disclose such 

27 information if the disclosure is made pursuant to a court order, and the cable operator 

28 provides the subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Therefore, the 

5 

18cv31-LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00031-LAB-KSC Document 8 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
1 information plaintiff seeks pursuant to a subpoena falls within an exception to the 

2 prohibition on disclosure within the Act. 

3 Accordingly, based on the information provided in the Ex Parte Application and 

4 supporting Declarations, the Court finds that plaintiff made a good faith effort to identify 

5 and serve the defendant. However, plaintiff is unable to do so without an Order from the 

6 Court allowing it to serve a subpoena on the ISP associated with the IP address in question. 

7 C. Ahilitv to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss. 

8 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), a case can be dismissed for lack of 

9 subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

10 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(l), 12(b)(6). "Under the Copyright Act of 1976 ('the Act') a plaintiff 

11 may not 'institute [ r an action in federal district court 'until registration of the copyright 

12 claim has been made in accordance with this title.' 17 U.S.C. § 411 (a)." Berry v. Penguin 

13 Group (USA), Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1202 (W.D. Wash. 2006). In order to state a 

14 viable claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must allege: (1) ownership of a valid 

15 copyright, and (2) a violation by the defendant of the copyright owner's exclusive rights 

16 under the Copyright Act. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004); 17 

17 U.S.C. § 501(a). 

18 As applied herein, the Complaint adequately alleges subject matter jurisdiction 

19 pursuant to Title 28, United Code, Sections 1331 (federal question) and 1338 (copyrights). 

20 The Complaint further alleges that plaintiff is either the registered owner or has pending 

21 registration applications for the adult motion pictures that defendant's IP address copied 

22 and distributed using the BitTorrent file distribution network without plaintiffs 

23 authorization. [Doc. No. 1 at pp. 5-6]. Thus, plaintiffhas alleged facts that could withstand 

24 a Rule 12(b )( 6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l 2(b ), a case can also be dismissed for lack 

26 of personal jurisdiction over a defendant or for improper venue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 

27 12(b)(2)&(3). To overcome a defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(2) 

28 for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of 

6 

18cv3 l-LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00031-LAB-KSC Document 8 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
1 jurisdiction by presenting facts that, if true, would support a finding of personal jurisdiction 

2 over the defendant. Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). Personal 

3 jurisdiction can be established over a person who resides in the forum state. Brayton 

4 Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 361 F.Supp.2d 1135, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2005). In 

5 copyTight infringement actions, venue is proper "in the district in which the defendant ... 

6 resides or may be found." 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). 

7 Based on the record before the Court, it also appears that the Complaint is likely to 

8 survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue. First, the 

9 Complaint alleges that geolocation technology was used to trace the IP address to a location 

10 in the State of California and in this District. Second, the Complaint alleges that the 

11 defendant resides here based on the results of geolocation technology. Third, the 

12 Complaint asserts that a substantial part of the alleged copyright infringement occurred in 

13 this District. Assuming it can support these assertions with geolocation evidence, plaintiff 

14 has shown to the Court's satisfaction that it is likely to withstand a motion to dismiss for 

15 lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue and is therefore entitled to serve a third 

16 party subpoena to discover the name and address of the subscriber to the subject IP address 

17 for the time period in question. 

18 CONCLUSION 

19 For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Serve a 

20 Third Party Subpoena is GRANTED with the following limitations: 

21 l. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena on defendant's ISP, AT&T Inc. (AT&T U22 verse), seeking the name and address only of the subscriber assigned to the IP address 

23 identified in the Complaint for the time periods of the alleged infringing activity outlined 

24 in Exhibit A to plaintiffs Complaint. 

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

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

27 subscriber identified in Exhibit A to plaintiffs Complaint. The requested information shall 

28 be limited to the name and address of the subscriber during the time period of the alleged 

7 

l 8cv3 l -LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00031-LAB-KSC Document 8 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
1 infringing activity referenced in Exhibit A to the Complaint. AT&T Inc. (AT&T U-verse) 

2 may seek a protective order if it determines there is a legitimate basis for doing so. 

3 3. AT&T Inc. (AT&T U-verse) shall have fourteen (14) calendar days after 

4 service of the subpoena to notify the subscriber that his or her identity has been subpoenaed 

5 by plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall then have 

6 thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the notice to seek a protective order or file any 

7 other responsive pleading. 

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

9 served pursuant to this Order to AT&T Inc. (AT&T U-verse). AT&T Inc. (AT&T U10 verse), in tum, must provide a copy of this Order along with the required notice to the 

11 subscriber whose identity is sought pursuant to this Order. No other discovery is authorized 

12 at this time. 

13 5. Until the Court orders otherwise, plaintiff shall not disclose the name, address, 

14 telephone number, or any other identifying information, other than the defendant's IP 

15 address, in the public record. All documents including any of defendant's identifying 

16 information, other than defendant's IP address, shall be filed under seal until defendant has 

17 had an opportunity to challenge the disclosure of any identifying information. 

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

19 Dated: May k_, 2018 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8 

18cv3 l-LAB(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00031-LAB-KSC Document 8 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8