Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01157/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01157-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

16cv1157-WQH-BGS

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

LHF Productions, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE-174.65.13.50,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv1157-WQH-BGS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR EARLY 

DISCOVERY

I. BACKGROUND

On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff, LHF Productions, Inc., filed a complaint against the 

John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.65.13.50 (“Defendant”) for copyright 

infringement. (ECF No. 1). On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for 

Expedited Discovery. In this motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to serve a third-party subpoena 

on the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), Cox Communications, prior to the Rule 26(f) 

Conference in order to ascertain the name and address of the John Doe Defendant. (ECF 

No. 5.) 

In its Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that it is the registered copyright holder of the 

motion picture London Has Fallen. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 4-6). Plaintiff contends Defendant 

copied and distributed Plaintiff’s copyrighted work through the BitTorrent file 

distribution network without Plaintiff’s permission. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6, 11, 15.)

Case 3:16-cv-01157-WQH-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 7
2

16cv1157-WQH-BGS

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

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 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.” 

Case 3:16-cv-01157-WQH-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 7
3

16cv1157-WQH-BGS

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

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. Plaintiff has Identified 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 April

17 through May 2, 2016; identified the ISP as Cox Communications; and located the IP 

address in San Diego, California, within the Southern District of California. (ECF Nos. 

1-2; 5-3). Critically, Plaintiff also submitted the Declaration of James S. Davis in support 

of this Motion. (ECF No. 5-2). 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01157-WQH-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 7
4

16cv1157-WQH-BGS

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

is most likely that the subscriber is a residential user and the 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 17 through 

May 2, 2016, ending just weeks before the filing of the Complaint and the instant Motion. 

(ECF No. 1-2; 5-3). 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.

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. 5-2). Plaintiff appears to have obtained and investigated the 

 

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-01157-WQH-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/20/16 Page 4 of 7
5

16cv1157-WQH-BGS

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

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.

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. (See section III(A), above.)

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 

Case 3:16-cv-01157-WQH-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/20/16 Page 5 of 7
6

16cv1157-WQH-BGS

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

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 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01157-WQH-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/20/16 Page 6 of 7
7

16cv1157-WQH-BGS

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

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).

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 20, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01157-WQH-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/20/16 Page 7 of 7