Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02289/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02289-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

16cv2289-BEN (BLM)

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

CELL FILM HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE-72.197.18.54,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv2289-BEN (BLM)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL;

AND

(2) GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO ISSUE AN FRCP 45 

SUBPOENA.

[ECF Nos. 10, 11]

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s December 21, 2016 ex parte “Motion to File 

Documents Under Seal” [ECF No. 11] and Plaintiff’s December 21, 2016 ex parte “Motion for 

Leave to Issue an FRCP 45 Subpoena” [ECF No. 10]. Because the Defendant has not been 

served, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motions and 

all supporting documents, the Court GRANTS both motions for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Cell Film Holdings, LLC. (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against Doe-72.197.18.54

alleging direct copyright infringement. ECF No. 1 (“Comp.”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

Case 3:16-cv-02289-BEN-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 4
2

16cv2289-BEN (BLM)

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

has illegally infringed and distributed its copyrighted movie, Cell, over the internet. Id. at 4. 

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s copyright through the BitTorrent 

software on 107 occasions. Id. at 4-5. On September 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed an ex parte Motion 

to Expedite Discovery, seeking to subpoena Defendant’s Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), Cox 

Communications, for Defendant’s true name and address pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“FRCP”) 45. ECF No. 5-1 at 3. On October 5, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex 

parte motion. ECF No. 7. In accordance with the Court’s order, Plaintiff served a subpoena on 

Cox Communications on October 7, 2016. ECF No. 8 at 1. Cox Communications responded on 

November 23, 2016, and provided the identifying information for the subscriber assigned to IP 

address 72.197.18.54. Id. 

Plaintiff sent two letters to the subscriber of IP address 72.197.18.54. Id. at 2, ECF Nos. 

10-6, 10-7. The first letter was sent on November 23, 2016, and the second letter was sent on 

December 2, 2016. ECF Nos. 10-6, 10-7. The letters advise the subscriber that the IP address 

assigned to the subscriber and his or her address was used to distribute protected material, 

including the motion picture, Cell, owned by Plaintiff. ECF Nos. 10-6, 10-7. The letters 

recommend that the subscriber consult an attorney and ask the subscriber to contact Plaintiff’s 

counsel to provide “assistance in identifying the infringer and responsible party.” ECF No. 10-6 

at 2. Plaintiff has not received any response to the two letters. ECF No. 10-2, Declaration of 

James S. Davis in Support of the Supplement to Plaintiff Motion for FRCP 45 Deposition (“Davis 

Decl.”), at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff requested an additional ninety (90) days to complete service 

upon the Defendant and explained that it planned to file a motion for discovery “within the next 

few weeks.” ECF No. 8 at 2. On December 15, 2016, District Judge Benitez granted in part 

Plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 9. Judge Benitez gave Plaintiff until January 20, 2017 to serve 

Defendant. Id. at 2.

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion seeking an order permitting it 

to serve an FRCP 45 subpoena to depose the subscriber of the IP address. ECF No. 10. In 

support of the motion, Plaintiff attached two letters addressed to the subscriber in which Plaintiff 

Case 3:16-cv-02289-BEN-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 4
3

16cv2289-BEN (BLM)

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

redacted the subscriber’s name and address. ECF Nos. 10-6, 10-7. Also on December 21, 2016, 

Plaintiff filed a motion to file the subscriber information of Doe-72.197.18.54 under seal. ECF 

No. 11. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks permission to file under seal a document identifying the 

subscriber’s name and address and to use the redacted letters. Id.; see ECF Nos. 10-6, 10-7. 

In support, Plaintiff merely states that some judges have required this protection. ECF No. 11

at 1. Because it is not yet clear whether the subscriber is a witness or a future defendant, the 

Court finds it appropriate to seal the subscriber’s identifying information. See ECF No. 10-1 at 

16. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file the subscriber information of Doe72.197.18.54 under seal.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE AN FRCP 45 SUBPOENA

On October 5, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to expedite discovery and 

authorized Plaintiff to subpoena records from Cox Communications to ascertain the identity of 

the defendant, who is identified in the Complaint by an Internet Protocol (“IP”) address only. 

ECF No. 7. On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to Issue an FRCP 45 

Subpoena” to take additional early discovery, indicating that Cox Communications identified the 

subscriber and requesting leave to depose the subscriber. ECF No. 10-1 at 18. Plaintiff explains 

that the subscriber has not responded to Plaintiff’s letters seeking voluntary cooperation from 

the subscriber to identify the alleged infringer and that therefore a deposition is necessary to 

ascertain the identity of the alleged infringer. Id. at 16.

For the reasons stated in this Court’s October 5, 2016 order, Plaintiff has shown good 

cause for its request for leave to conduct early discovery. See ECF No. 7, see also Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(d)(1); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 

The Court also finds good cause to allow Plaintiff to depose the subscriber since the subscriber 

has not voluntarily responded to Plaintiff’s letters and Plaintiff does not know whether the 

subscriber is the alleged infringer or a potential witness to the alleged violation. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s request to depose the subscriber identified in the sealed document filed on December 

21, 2016 [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED with the following conditions:

1. The deposition length is limited to one and a half (1.5) hours.

Case 3:16-cv-02289-BEN-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 4
4

16cv2289-BEN (BLM)

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. Questions are limited to establishing the identity of the person(s) who may have 

installed or used a BitTorrent client on a device that used IP address 72.197.18.54 located at 

the address identified in ECF No. 11 from June 12, 2016 through June 15, 2016 to upload or

download the movies identified in ECF No. 10-6 at 3-4.

3. Plaintiff must notify the subscriber of the California Bar Lawyer Referral Service 

available online at http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Public/LawyerReferralServicesLRS.aspx or by 

calling (866) 442-2529 and urge the subscriber to consult an attorney as soon as possible.

4. Plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to accommodate the subscriber in time and 

location of the deposition and ensure that service of the subpoena includes a copy of this Order,

ECF No. 12, and ECF No. 10-6 which identifies the dates, times, and film titles of the alleged 

violations.

5. Plaintiff must notify the subscriber that ignoring a Court Order, a subpoena seeking 

the subscriber’s deposition, or a Summons and Complaint may result in sanctions including an

award of attorney fees and possibly the entry of a default judgment for money damages.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall refer to the subscriber generally in public 

filings and attach a separate exhibit that includes the subscriber’s identifying information until 

the alleged infringer(s) is identified.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/5/2017

Case 3:16-cv-02289-BEN-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/05/17 Page 4 of 4