Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01840/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01840-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

AF HOLDINGS, LLC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 12-CV-1840-AJB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

[DOC. NO. 3]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte Application

for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery. (Doc. No. 3.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Ex

Parte Application is DENIED without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against John Doe (“Defendant”), alleging

direct and contributory copyright infringement, and negligence. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff purports to

hold the rights to the copyrighted work at issue in this action, a video entitled “Sexual Obsession.” 

Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that the video was copied and distributed by Defendant through use of the

BitTorrent protocol.1/ Id. at 1.

On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff submitted an Ex Parte Application to this Court, requesting

leave to serve limited, immediate discovery on a third party Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) in order

1/ BitTorrent is a modern file sharing method used for distributing data via the Internet. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) 

1 12CV1840 

Case 3:12-cv-01840-AJB-WVG Document 4 Filed 08/21/12 Page 1 of 4
 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

to obtain the true identity and contact information of the Doe Defendant. (Doc. No. 3 at 1.) Plaintiff

seeks to obtain the true name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address that corresponds to

Defendant’s IP address. Id. at 7. Plaintiff claims that expedited discovery is necessary because,

without the identifying information Plaintiff seeks, it cannot name Defendant in the Complaint or

serve him or her with process. Id. at 4. Plaintiff notes that, because the action cannot progress

without Defendant’s identifying information, “Plaintiff’s need for the information is substantial.” Id.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a party may not initiate discovery before the parties have satisfied the meet and

confer requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). However, a court may authorize earlier

discovery “for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(d). A court may grant a request to take discovery prior to the parties’ meeting under Rule 26(f)

where the requesting party demonstrates good cause. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electon Am., Inc.,

208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002); U.S. v. Distribuidora Batiz CGH, S.A. DE C.V., 2009 WL

2487971, at 10 (S.D. Cal. 2009). A balancing test is used to determine the presence of good cause. 

See Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 267-268. “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited

discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding

party.” Id. at 276. 

Good cause is often found by courts in Internet infringement cases where the party seeking

expedited discovery of a Doe defendant’s identity establishes the following:

1. A prima facie case of infringement;

2. There is no other way to identify the Doe defendant; and,

3. There is a risk that the ISP will destroy its logs prior to the Rule 26(f) conference.

See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 4104214, at 4 (N.D. Cal. 2008). In UMG Recordings,

the court explained,

[I]n considering “the administration of justice,” early discovery avoids ongoing,

continuous harm to the infringed party and there is no other way to advance the

litigation. As for the defendant, there is no prejudice where the discovery request is

narrowly tailored to only seek their identity.

Id. (citations omitted).

2 12CV1840 

Case 3:12-cv-01840-AJB-WVG Document 4 Filed 08/21/12 Page 2 of 4
 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

The Ninth Circuit has held that when the defendants’ identities are unknown, courts may

grant leave for plaintiffs to take expedited discovery in order 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.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Judges in this district, including this Judge, have found that Doe defendants must be

identified by the plaintiffs with sufficient specificity by providing both the unique IP addresses, and

the alleged physical point of origin assigned to each IP address, on the day of the purported

infringement. See Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1 through 5, No. 12-CV-1354-LAB-WVG, ECF

No. 5, at 4 (S.D. Cal. July 9, 2012) (opinion by Judge Gallo); Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1

through 27, No. 12-CV-1356-CAB-WVG, ECF No. 5, at 4 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2012) (opinion by

Judge Gallo); 808 Holdings, LLC v. Collective of Dec. 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12-CV-0186-

MMA-RBB, ECF No. 7, at 8 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (opinion by Judge Brooks); Malibu Media, LLC

v. John Does 1-12, No. 12-CV-1059-MMA-BGS, ECF No. 8, at 4 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2012) (opinion

by Judge Skomal). These courts have determined that the requested expedited discovery may be

granted if the alleged physical point of origin is within this Court’s judicial district, however, if it is

outside the Court’s judicial district, the complaint may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and

therefore expedited discovery will not be granted for that individual IP address. Malibu Media, LLC,

No. 12-CV-1354-LAB-WVG, ECF No. 5, at 3-4; Malibu Media, LLC, No. 12-CV-1356-CAB-WVG,

ECF No. 5, at 3-4; 808 Holdings, LLC, No. 12-CV-0186-MMA-RBB, ECF No. 7, at 10-13; Malibu

Media, LLC, No. 12-CV-1059-MMA-BGS, ECF No. 8, at 6.

III. DISCUSSION

This Court has reviewed the allegations in the Complaint and finds Plaintiff’s conclusory

assertion that venue is proper to be insufficient to allege that Defendant’s IP address is located within

this Court’s jurisdiction.2/ (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Following this Court’s reasoning in prior cases, and the

reasoning of other Judges in this district, the Court finds that Plaintiff must provide more than a mere

2/ Plaintiff asserts in its Complaint, “Venue is properly founded in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

 §§ 1391(b) and 1400(a) because Defendant resides in this District, may be found in this District, or a 

 substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred within this District.” (Doc. 

 No. 1 at 3.)

3 12CV1840 

Case 3:12-cv-01840-AJB-WVG Document 4 Filed 08/21/12 Page 3 of 4
 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

assertion within the Complaint that Defendant’s IP address is located within this district. Plaintiff has

failed to attach an Exhibit showing the date, time, and location of the alleged infringing activity. 

Further, the Declaration of Peter Hansmeier, attached to the Ex Parte Application, is silent as to the

use of geolocation technology, and any other tactics used to trace Defendant’s IP address to a point

of original within this district. (See Doc. No. 3-1.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application is

denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 21, 2012

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

4 12CV1840 

Case 3:12-cv-01840-AJB-WVG Document 4 Filed 08/21/12 Page 4 of 4