Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01056/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01056-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1056-AJB (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION FOR EARLY

DISCOVERY

[DOC. NO. 4]

vs.

JOHN DOES 1-11,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas

Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. (Doc. No. 4) Having reviewed the motion and supporting

documents, and having considered the requirements of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Early Discovery is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Background

The instant motion was filed on April 30, 2012, the same day as the complaint. 

The complaint alleges that the eleven John Doe defendants engaged in alleging direct

and contributory copyright infringement of a protected work as to which Plaintiff owns

the copyright. According to the complaint,the protected work was distributed and shared

to and through these defendants using BitTorrent technology. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff

claims to have identified the Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses of the John Doe

defendants allegedly involved in the infringing activity and, using publicly available

- 1 - 12cv1056 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01056-LAB-DHB Document 5 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 5
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

search tools, has traced the IP addresses to physical addresses within and without this

District and has identified the Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) which leased the

involved IP addresses to subscribers. (Doc. No. 4-3). 

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) states:

“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the

parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a

proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule

26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation,

or by court order.”

In the instant case, Plaintiff may only use expedited discovery by court order. In this

Circuit, courts must find “good cause” to determine whether to permit discovery prior to

the Rule 26(f) conference. Good cause exists where the need for expedited discovery, in

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

party. See, e.g., Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-43, 2007 WL 4538697 *1 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 

In infringement cases involving the Internet, good cause is often found by the

courts where the party seeking expedited discovery of a Doe defendant’s identity

establishes the following:

1. A prima facie case of infringement;

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

3. That 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 *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008). In UMG the

court said:

“[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

- 2 - 12cv1056 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01056-LAB-DHB Document 5 Filed 06/08/12 Page 2 of 5
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

for the defendant, there is no prejudice where the discovery

request is narrowly tailored to only seek their identity.” 

(citations omitted). 

This Court has reviewed the allegations of the complaint and finds that the

Plaintiff has alleged a prima facie case of direct and contributory copyright infringement

against Doe defendants 1 through 9 (the Doe defendants alleged to have used IP

addresses traced to physical location within this District). 

As to Doe defendants 10 and 11, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to

demonstrate a prima facie case. Doe 10's location has been traced by Plaintiff to Indio,

California; Doe 11 has been traced to Apple Valley, California. Neither of these locations

are within the Southern District of California. In order to establish a prima facie case,

Plaintiff must demonstrate that its complaint against these defendants likely would

survive a motion to dismiss. The fact that Does 10 and 11 are located outside of this

District raise serious questions regarding whether these defendants are subject to suit

in this District and whether the complaint against these defendants would survive a

motion to dismiss for improper venue. See Goldberg v. Cameron, 482 F.Supp.2d 1136,

1143 (N. D., Cal. 2007); Brayton Purcell, LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124,

1126 (9 Cir. 2010). (“This Circuit interprets [the statute governing venue in copyright th

cases - 28 U.S.C. 1400] to allow venue in any judicial district where, if treated as a

separate state, the defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction.”). 

The complaint’s allegation that the joinder of these defendants is warranted is

problematic. Plaintiff alleges that joinder is appropriate because the defendants acted

in concert. (Doc. No. 1). Although the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on whether permissive

joinder is proper in cases where it is alleged that Doe defendants collectively downloaded

and uploaded the same file using BitTorrent technology, several recent district court

cases have found such joinder improper. See Celestial, Inc. v. Swarm, 2012 U.S. Dist.

- 3 - 12cv1056 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01056-LAB-DHB Document 5 Filed 06/08/12 Page 3 of 5
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

LEXIS 41078, at *7 n.3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 20120; Liberty Media Holdings v. Does 1-62,

2012 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 24232, at *16-17 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2012). 

Plaintiff has alleged sufficiently that it cannot identify the Doe defendants

without early discovery from the ISPs and that early discovery is necessary because the

ISPs are not required to maintain their logs for any set period of time and may destroy

them in the ordinary course of business. 

Finally, this Court must consider the requirements of the 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

ISPs that Plaintiff intends to subpoena in this case are cable operators within the

meaning of the Act. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s may obtain and serve subpoenas under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 to Cox

Communications (the “ISP”) in order solely to obtain the names and addresses of

subscribers identified as Does 1 through 9 in Exhibit B attached to Plaintiff’s motion at

the precise dates and times identified therein. (Doc. No. 4-3). The ISP shall have

fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena upon it to notify its subscriber

that his/her identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity

has been subpoenaed shall have thirty (30) calendar days from the date of such notice

to challenge the disclosure to the Plaintiff by filing an appropriate pleading with this

court contesting the subpoena. The ISP, if it intends to move to quash the subpoena,

must do so prior to the return date of the subpoena. The return date of the subpoena

must allow for at least forty-five (45) days from service to production. If a motion to

- 4 - 12cv1056 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01056-LAB-DHB Document 5 Filed 06/08/12 Page 4 of 5
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

quash or other customer challenge is brought, the ISP must preserve the information

sought by Plaintiff pending resolution of the motion or challenge. 

2. Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed pursuant to these

subpoenas exclusively in pursuing this litigation.

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

served pursuant to this Order to the named ISPs. The ISPs, in turn, must provide a copy

of this Order along with the required notice to any subscriber whose identity is sought

pursuant to this Order.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Doe defendants 1 through 9

as identified in Exhibit B attached to Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED

as to all other Doe defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: June 8, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 5 - 12cv1056 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01056-LAB-DHB Document 5 Filed 06/08/12 Page 5 of 5