Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03999/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03999-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

No. C-08-03999 RMW

TSF

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 9/4/2008 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UMG RECORDINGS, INC. et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

No. C-08-03999 RMW

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

[Re Docket No. 2]

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs ("Recording Companies") in this case are record companies, copyright holders

and members of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. See Docket No. 3, Decl. of

Carlos Linares ¶¶ 1-2. The defendant, John Doe, is alleged to have distributed a variety of

copyrighted sound recordings over a peer-to-peer network. Docket No. 1, Compl. Ex. A. Using a

third-party investigator, MediaSentry, Inc., the Recording Companies patrol various peer-to-peer

networks, and so encountered this John Doe's alleged distribution of the Recording Companies'

copyrighted works. See Linares Decl. ¶¶ 12, 18. Because a peer-to-peer network user's username

often bears no relation to their actual identity, however, John Doe's true identity remains unknown to

the Recording Companies. See id. ¶ 10.

The Recording Companies do know John Doe's IP address (169.233.32.109) and when John

Doe was assigned that address (May 15, 2008 at 9:48 am). Compl. Ex. A. The Recording

Case 5:08-cv-03999-RMW Document 8 Filed 09/04/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 This statement is readily confirmed using free IP address locator services, for example,

http://www.ip-adress.com/ipaddresstolocation/.

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

No. C-08-03999 RMW

TSF 2

Companies' investigation of the IP address led them to the University of California, Santa Cruz. 

Linares Decl. ¶ 18.1

 Based on the location of John Doe's IP address, the Recording Companies

believe the defendant resides in this judicial district. See Compl. ¶¶ 3, 9.

The Recording Companies filed suit on August 21, 2008 and contemporaneously filed an ex

parte application for leave to take immediate discovery. The Recording Companies wish to serve a

subpoena on third party the University of California, Santa Cruz pursuant to Rule 45 to obtain

"documents that identify Defendant, including the name, current (and permanent) address and

telephone number, e-mail address, and Media Access Control addresses for Defendant." The

Recording Companies also tack on a request that the court order disclosure of this information

pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2)(B).

II. ANALYSIS

Rule 26(d) forbids a party from seeking discovery from any source "before the parties have

conferred as required" by the rules of civil procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Rule 26(d) permits

a few exceptions, including allowing pre-conference discovery by court order. Id. In turn, a court

may order pre-conference discovery upon a showing of good cause. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo

Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). "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.

To begin, "the use of 'John Doe' to identify a defendant is not favored." Gillespie v. Civiletti,

629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). But it is appropriate "where the identity of alleged defendants

will not be known prior to the filing of a complaint." Id. Here, the Recording Companies have

conducted as extensive an investigation as practical into the defendant's identity before filing their

complaint, and in this context, proceeding against a "John Doe" defendant seems appropriate. "In

such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the

unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the

complaint would be dismissed on other grounds." Id. Thus, the Recording Companies are entitled

Case 5:08-cv-03999-RMW Document 8 Filed 09/04/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

No. C-08-03999 RMW

TSF 3

to some discovery to attempt to identify the defendant because it appears likely discovery will

identify the unknown defendant and their complaint appears unlikely to be dismissed on other

grounds.

Obviously, a plaintiff cannot have a discovery planning conference with an anonymous

defendant. It follows that the discovery the Recording Companies are entitled to conduct to identify

the defendant must take place before the discovery planning conference because such information

will permit the Recording Companies to identify John Doe and serve the defendant, permitting this

case to go forward. That information has the additional benefit of allowing the Recording

Companies to begin settlement negotiations. To accomplish these goals, the Recording Companies

request "documents that identify Defendant, including the name, current (and permanent) address

and telephone number, e-mail address, and Media Access Control addresses for Defendant." The

court agrees that documents identifying John Doe's name, current and permanent address, e-mail

address and Media Access Control number will permit the Recording Companies to identify and

serve John Doe. But the Recording Companies do not explain why they need to know John Doe's

telephone number. It is not obvious why such information is necessary to identify and serve the

defendant, and the court sees no benefit to enabling the Recording Companies to communicate with

a potentially unrepresented defendant without creating evidence of any such communications. The

Recording Companies have therefore shown a compelling need for their requested discovery, minus

the defendant's telephone number.

This need must be balanced against "the prejudice to the responding party." Semitool, 208

F.R.D. at 276. Here, the responding party is the University of California, Santa Cruz. It is unclear

what prejudice it will suffer if ordered to turn over the information requested by the Recording

Companies. On the other hand, there is some need for exigency given the possibility that the

information linking the known to IP address to the defendant's identity will be destroyed in the

ordinary course of business. See Linares Decl. ¶¶ 24, 25. Were UC Santa Cruz an ordinary internet

service provider then, it seems clear that the need for the requested discovery would substantially

outweigh any prejudice.

Case 5:08-cv-03999-RMW Document 8 Filed 09/04/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 "Directory information" is defined as including "the student's name, address, telephone

listing, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities

and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards

received, and the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended by the student." 20

U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(5)(A). It appears that the statute permits parents to request that a university not

disclose directory information about their children. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(5)(B).

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

No. C-08-03999 RMW

TSF 4

But UC Santa Cruz is not an ordinary internet service provider. It is also a university that

depends on federal funding, and must comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,

20 U.S.C. § 1232g. The Act generally prohibits the disclosure of "any personally identifiable

information in education records other than directory information." 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2).2 An

exception exists for lawfully issued subpoenas, provided that "parents and the students are notified

of all such . . . subpoenas in advance of the compliance therewith by the educational institution or

agency." 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2)(B). Thus, it appears that any prejudice to UC Santa Cruz

stemming from the Act is addressed by ensuring that it has adequate time to notify John Doe and

John Doe's parents (if John Doe is a student) prior to complying with the subpoena.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the Recording Companies leave to serve

immediately a Rule 45 subpoena on the University of California, Santa Cruz to seek documents

revealing the name, current and permanent address, e-mail address, and Media Access Control

address of John Doe. 

The disclosure of this information is ordered pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2)(B). The

return date of the subpoena must be reasonably calculated to permit the University to notify John

Doe and John Doe's parents if it chooses prior to responding to the subpoena. Furthermore, any

information disclosed to the Recording Companies in response to the Rule 45 subpoena may be used

solely for the purpose of protecting their rights under the Copyright Act.

If the University or John Doe wishes to move to quash the subpoena, it must do so before the

return date of the subpoena.

DATED: 8/29/2008

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-03999-RMW Document 8 Filed 09/04/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

No. C-08-03999 RMW

TSF 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Dawniell Alise Zavala dawniell.zavala@hro.com 

Counsel for Defendant:

No appearance

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 9/4/2008 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:08-cv-03999-RMW Document 8 Filed 09/04/08 Page 5 of 5