Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01164/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01164-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DOE-69.181.52.57
Defendant
Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE-69.181.52.57,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01164-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE RULE 

45 SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION

Re: Dkt. No. 30

Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club LLC owns the copyright for the motion picture Dallas Buyers 

Club. Plaintiff alleges that the Doe Defendant named here using the IP address 69.181.52.57 

infringed that copyright. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to issue a 

deposition subpoena, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, to Bu Li (“Li”) at 5 Fratessa 

Court, San Francisco, California 94134. (Dkt. No. 30.

1

) The Court concludes that oral argument 

is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and, finding good cause, GRANTS the motion and permits 

Plaintiff to subpoena and depose Li for the limited purpose of identifying the Doe Defendant.

BACKGROUND

The Court previously discussed the factual background of this case in its order permitting 

Plaintiff to subpoena third party Comcast Cable and incorporates that discussion herein. (See Dkt. 

No. 7.) As a result of the Comcast subpoena, Plaintiff was able to identify the following 

subscriber as associated with IP address 69.181.52.57: Bu Li, 5 Fratessa Court, San Francisco, 

California 94134. (Dkt. No. 30-6 ¶ 6.) On May 3 and May 10, 2016, Plaintiff sent two letters to 

Li, providing Li with data relating to the alleged copyright infringement at IP address 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

Case 3:16-cv-01164-JSC Document 31 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

69.181.52.57 and requesting Li’s assistance in identifying the actual infringer. (Id. ¶ 7; Dkt. Nos. 

30-4, 30-5.) Li responded by mail on May 16, 2016 and subsequently spoke with Plaintiff on the 

phone on June 8, 2016, indicating that he would help Plaintiff by answering some questions. (Dkt. 

No. 30-6 ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff thereafter emailed Li with questions on June 9, 2016. (Id. ¶ 10.) On 

June 10, 2016, Li responded by email stating that he would provide as much information as 

possible. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff has since been unable to secure Li’s cooperation (id. ¶ 12) and now 

moves the Court for permission to serve a deposition subpoena on Li. (Dkt. No. 30.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) requires a court order for discovery if it is 

requested prior to a Rule 26(f) conference between the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (“A party 

may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 

26(f), except . . . by court order.”). In fashioning Rule 26(d) discovery orders, the district court 

wields broad discretion. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).

Courts within the Ninth Circuit apply a “good cause” standard to determine whether to 

permit such early discovery. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 

(N.D. Cal. 2002); see also G.N. Iheaku & Co. v. Does 1-3, No. C-14-02069 LB, 2014 WL 

2759075, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2014) (collecting cases). “Good cause may be found where the 

need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the 

prejudice of the responding party.” Id.

When the identities of defendants are not known before a complaint is filed, a 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.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). To determine whether 

there is “good cause” to permit expedited discovery to identify doe defendants, courts commonly 

consider whether:

(1) the plaintiff can 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; (2) the plaintiff 

has identified all previous steps taken to locate the elusive 

defendant; (3) the plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand 

Case 3:16-cv-01164-JSC Document 31 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

a motion to dismiss; and (4) the plaintiff has demonstrated that there 

is a reasonable likelihood of being able to identify the defendant 

through discovery such that service of process would be possible.

OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. 11-3311, 2011 WL 4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 

2011) (citing Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing under all four factors to establish good cause for

additional early discovery in the form of a Rule 45 deposition subpoena to Li. 

Under the first factor, “the Court must examine whether the Plaintiff has identified the 

Defendants with sufficient specificity, demonstrating that each Defendant is a real person or entity 

who would be subjected to jurisdiction in this Court.” Pac. Century Int’l, Ltd. v. Does 1-48, No. 

11-3823, 2011 WL 4725243, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011). Plaintiff has done so. Specifically, 

by way of its subpoena to Comcast Cable, Plaintiff has identified the subscriber associated with 

Comcast IP address 69.181.52.57 as Bu Li, an individual residing in San Francisco, California. 

(Dkt. No. 30-6 ¶ 6.) San Francisco is in the Northern District of California and thus the Court has

jurisdiction over Li (or another individual at Li’s address) and Plaintiff’s federal copyright claim.

Under the second factor, the party should identify all previous steps taken to locate the 

elusive defendant. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. “This element is aimed at ensuring 

that plaintiffs make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of service of process and 

specifically identifying defendants.” Id. Here, Plaintiff used information from its pre-suit 

investigation to subpoena Comcast and has since been able to identify the subscriber associated 

with Comcast IP address 69.181.52.57 as an individual (Bu Li) at a particular location in San 

Francisco (5 Fratessa Court). (Dkt. No. 30-6 ¶ 6.) Plaintiff has also engaged in efforts to work 

with Li to identify the actual infringer. (Id. ¶¶ 7-11.) Li, however, has been unresponsive since 

June 10, 2016. (Id. ¶ 12.) Absent additional information from Li, Plaintiff cannot identify the 

Doe Defendant for certain, as other individuals, besides Li, may reside at that location and/or 

make use of the IP address 69.181.52.57. Plaintiff has thus satisfied the second element.

Under the third requirement, a plaintiff must establish to the court’s satisfaction that the 

complaint can withstand a motion to dismiss. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. Plaintiff 

Case 3:16-cv-01164-JSC Document 31 Filed 08/12/16 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

has done so. To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to 

establish two elements: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent 

elements of the work that are original. Feist Pub’n, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 

(1991); see also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(defining the two elements as (1) ownership of the infringed material and (2) that alleged 

infringers violated an exclusive right granted to the copyright holder) (citation omitted); 17 U.S.C. 

§ 501(a). Plaintiff has made this showing by alleging that it holds a valid copyright for Dallas 

Buyers Club and that the Doe Defendant distributed the motion picture without its permission. 

(Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 12-13, 15, 21 & Ex. 1.) Moreover, Plaintiff has also shown through its subpoena to 

Comcast that the Doe Defendant is located at a specific address in San Francisco, which is enough 

at this juncture to assert personal jurisdiction over the Doe Defendant and to conclude that venue 

lies in this District. See Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (noting that venue in a copyright infringement action is proper in the district in which 

the defendant resides or may be found, including any district where the defendant is subject to 

personal jurisdiction). Thus, Plaintiff has met the third element of good cause for early discovery.

The final factor concerns whether the discovery sought will uncover the identity of the Doe 

Defendant. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642-43 (stating that early discovery to identify doe 

defendants should be allowed “unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities”). 

Again, Plaintiff has identified the individual and address associated with the Comcast IP address at 

issue. With this information, and based on prior experience, Plaintiff argues that the likely 

infringer will be either the subscriber himself or someone known to the subscriber that he can 

identify. (See Dkt. No. 30-1 at 15-16.) Plaintiff has demonstrated that a limited deposition of Li 

should reveal the identity of the Doe Defendant.

Ultimately, granting Plaintiff additional early discovery to identify the Doe Defendant 

appears to be the only way to advance this litigation. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, No. 

C 08-1193 SBA, 2008 WL 4104214, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008) (citation omitted). Moreover, 

there is no prejudice to the Doe Defendant in granting the requested early discovery because it “is 

narrowly tailored to seek only their identity.” Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiff has therefore met 

Case 3:16-cv-01164-JSC Document 31 Filed 08/12/16 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

its burden of establishing good cause for early discovery.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to issue a 

Rule 45 deposition subpoena to Li for the limited purpose of identifying the Doe Defendant in this 

case. As done previously (see Dkt. No. 9), Plaintiff shall file a proposed subpoena and a proposed 

order regarding notice of the subpoena by August 17, 2016. The proposed order shall include the 

following notice to Li regarding the availability of free legal assistance to pro se litigants:

In responding to this subpoena, if you do not have an attorney, you 

are encouraged to seek free legal assistance from the Northern 

District’s Pro Se Help Desk, United States Courthouse, San 

Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San 

Francisco, CA 94102, or the Help Desk at the Oakland Federal 

Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, 4th Floor, Room 470S, Oakland, CA 

94612. Appointments can be made in person or by calling 415-782-

8982.

Once the Court approves the subpoena and order, Plaintiff may serve both documents on Li. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01164-JSC Document 31 Filed 08/12/16 Page 5 of 5