`Case 3:17-cv-07006—LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`ONUI-hWN
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`San Francisco Division
`
`STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
`Case No. l7—cv—07006-LB
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V-
`
`ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF'S
`EX PARTE MOTION TO TAKE EARLY
`DISCOVERY
`
`JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP
`
`ADDRESS 24.7.7254,
`
`Re: ECF No. 7
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings owns the copyrights for several adult motion pictures.1 It
`
`alleges that someone — the Doe defendant here — who uses the IP address 24.7.7254 infringed
`
`on those copyrights.2 Despite its own efforts, Strike 3 Holdings has not been able to identify the
`
`individual associated with that IP address.3 Strike 3 Holdings now asks the court to let it serve a
`
`subpoena on non-party Comcast Cable Communications LLC, the Doe defendant’s intemet
`
`service provider, to learn the Doe defendant’s identity.4 Because Strike 3 Holdings has
`
`demonstrated that good cause exists to allow it to serve a subpoena, the court grants the motion.
`
`1 Mot. — ECF No. 7 at 7. Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint
`
`2 Id. at 9.
`
`3 Id. at 1&17.
`
`4 See generally id.
`
`ORDER — No. 17-cv-07006-LB
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-07006-LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 2 of 7
`Case 3:17-cv-07006—LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 2 of 7
`
`STATEMENT
`
`Strike 3 Holdings is the owner of several adult motion pictures distributed through its adult
`
`brands Blocked, Tushy, and Vixen.5 The motion pictures are registered with the United States
`
`Copyright Office or have complete applications pending.6
`
`The Doe defendant, who uses the Comcast Cable-provided IP address 24.7.7254, used the file
`
`distribution network known as “BitTorrent” to illegally download and distribute Strike 3
`
`Holdings’s copyrighted movies.7 Through well-accepted geolocation technology, Strike 3 has
`
`traced each download made to the Doe defendant’s IP address to a physical address in the
`
`Northern District of California.8 Strike 3 Holdings’s investigator established direct “TCP/IP”
`
`connections with the defendant’s IP address while the defendant was using BitTorrent.9 The
`
`investigator downloaded media files containing a digital copy of Strike 3’s copyrighted movies
`
`from the defendant.10 “A full copy of each digital medial file was downloaded from the BitTorrent
`
`file distribution network, and it was confirmed through independent calculation that the file has
`
`correlating to each file matched the file has downloaded by the defendant.”11 Strike 3 Holdings did
`
`not give the defendant permission or authorization to distribute its copyrighted movies.12 Strike 3
`
`Holdings alleges that Comcast Cable can identify the defendant through his or her IP address. 13
`
`On December 7, 2017, Strike 3 Holdings filed a complaint against the Doe defendant alleging
`
`one claim for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.14 On December 20, 2017, Strike 3
`
`5 Compl. — ECF No. 1 at 1 (1111 2—3), 6 (1111 35—37).
`
`6 Id. at 5 (1111 31—33).
`
`7 Id. at 4 (11 23).
`
`3 Id. at 2 (11 9).
`
`9 Id. at 4_5 (11 24).
`
`1° Id. at 5 (11 25).
`
`“ Id. (11 26).
`
`‘2 Id. at 6 (11 37).
`
`‘3 Id. at 2 (11 5).
`
`‘4 Id. at $7 (1111 3+39).
`
`ORDER — No. 17-cv-07006-LB
`
`2
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`hWN
`\OOO\10\M
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-07006-LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 3 of 7
`Case 3:17-cv-07006-LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`hWN
`\OOONQUI
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Holdings filed an ex parte motion asking the court to allow it to serve Comcast Cable with a
`
`subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.15
`
`GOVERNING LAW
`
`A court may authorize early discovery before the Rule 26(1) conference for the parties’ and
`
`witnesses’ convenience and in the interests ofjustice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts within the
`
`Ninth Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown “good cause” for early discovery.
`
`See, e.g., IO Grp., Inc. v. Does 1-65, No. C 10-4377 SC, 2010 WL 4055667, at *2 (ND. Cal. Oct.
`
`15, 2010); Semitool, Inc. v. Tok_vo Electron Am, Inc., 208 FRD. 273, 275-77 (N.D. Cal. 2002);
`
`Tex. Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v. Dlrindsa, No. C 10-0035, 2010 WL 2353520, at *2 (ED.
`
`Cal. June 9, 2010); Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 613-14 03.
`
`Ariz. 2001) (collecting cases and standards). “Good cause may be found where the need for
`
`expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration ofjustice, outweighs the prejudice to
`
`the responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276.
`
`In evaluating whether a plaintiff establishes good cause to learn the identity of a Doe
`
`defendant through early discovery, courts examine whether the plaintiff: (1) identifies the Doe
`
`defendant with sufficient specificity that the court can determine that the defendant is a real person
`
`Who can be sued in federal court; (2) recounts the steps taken to locate and identify the defendant;
`
`(3) demonstrates that the action can withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) shows that the
`
`discovery is reasonably likely to lead to identifying information that will permit service of process.
`
`Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandv.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (ND. Cal. 1999) (citations omitted).
`
`“‘[W]here the identity of alleged defendants [is not] known prior to the filing of a complaint[,] 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.” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999)
`
`(quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)).
`
`‘5 Mot. — ECF No. 7.
`
`ORDER — No. 17-cv-07006-LB
`
`3
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-07006-LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 4 of 7
`Case 3:17-cv-07006—LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 4 of 7
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`1. Strike 3 Holdings Establishes Good Cause for Early Discovery
`
`Strike 3 Holdings has made a sufficient showing under each of the four seescandy factors
`
`listed above to establish good cause to permit it to engage in early discovery to identify the Doe
`
`defendant.
`
`First, Strike 3 Holdings has identified the Doe defendant with sufficient specificity that the
`
`court can determine that he or she is a real person who can be sued in federal court. It alleges that
`
`the Doe defendant downloaded Strike 3 Holdings’s copyrighted adult motion pictures and
`
`distributed them over the BitTorrent network. 16 To download the movie, Doe defendant had to
`
`direct his or her BitTorrent client to download the media file.17 These facts indicate that the Doe
`
`defendant is an identifiable adult who likely is the primary subscriber of the IP address or
`
`someone who resides with and is known to the subscriber. Strike 3 Holdings also has traced each
`
`download made to the Doe defendant’s IP address to the Northern District of California, thus
`
`giving the court jurisdiction over the defendant and Strike 3’s federal claim.18
`
`Second, Strike 3 Holdings has recounted the steps taken to locate and identify the Doe
`
`defendant. The Doe defendant downloaded and distributed Strike 3 Holdings’s movies through his
`
`or her IP address, and his or her IP address was traced to this district.19 The IP address is not
`
`sufficient for Strike 3 to identify the Doe defendant.
`
`Third, Strike 3 Holdings has demonstrated that its copyright claim could withstand a motion to
`
`dismiss. A plaintiff “must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct
`
`infringement: (1) [he or she] must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) [he
`
`or she] must demonstrate that the alleged infiingers violate at least one exclusive right granted to
`
`copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc, 508 F.3d 1146,
`
`1159 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir.
`
`1‘ Comp]. — ECF No. 1 at 4—5 (1111 2449).
`
`‘7 Mot. — ECF No. 7 at 15.
`
`‘8 Comp]. — ECF No. 1 at 2 (11 9).
`
`‘9 Id. (1111 8H9).
`
`ORDER — No. 17-cv-07006-LB
`
`4
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`hWN
`\OOO\10\M
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-07006-LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 5 of 7
`Case 3:17-cv-07006-LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 5 of 7
`
`2001)); see 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). Under Section 106, a copyright holder has the exclusive rights to
`
`reproduce, distribute, publicly display, perform, and create derivative works of the copyrighted
`
`work. Direct copyright infringement does not require intent or any particular state of mind. Fox
`
`Broad. Co, Inc. v. Dish Network, LLC, 905 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1098-99 (CD. Cal. 2012); Religious
`
`Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Commc’n Servs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, 1367 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
`
`Strike 3 Holdings alleges that it holds the copyrights for the adult motion pictures that the Doe
`
`defendant downloaded (and thus copied) and distributed the movies without its permission.20
`
`Strike 3 Holdings has sufficiently alleged a prima facie claim for copyright infringement.
`
`Fourth, Strike 3 Holdings has shown that the discovery it seeks is reasonably likely to lead to
`
`identifying information that will permit service of process on the Doe defendant. Strike 3 Holdings
`
`alleges that Comcast Cable’s records should identify the Doe defendant.21
`
`2. Protective Order
`
`“[U]nder Rule 26(c), the Court may sua sponte grant a protective order for good cause
`
`shown.” McCoy v. Southwest Airlines Co., Inc., 211 F.R.D. 381, 385 (CD. Cal. 2002). The court
`
`issues the limited protective order described below because the ISP subscriber may be an innocent
`
`third party, the subject matter of the suit deals with sensitive and personal matters.
`
`Here, as has been discussed by other courts in this district, the ISP subscribers may not be the
`
`individuals who infiinged upon Strike 3 Holdings’s copyright. See, e.g., Pacific Centurv Intern.
`
`Ltd. v. Does 1-101, No. C—11—02533 (DMR), 2011 WL 5117424, at *2 (ND. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011);
`
`see also 10 Group, Inc. v. Does 1-19, No. C 10-03851 SI, 2011 WL 772909, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar.
`
`1, 2011) (granting the plaintiff additional time to identify and serve the true defendant where a
`
`subscriber asserted that he did not infringe plaintiff’s work, suggesting that someone else used his
`
`IP address to infringe the plaintiff‘s work, and the plaintiff claimed that it needed to take third-
`
`20 Comp]. — ECF No. 1 at 4—5 (1m 2441).
`
`2‘ Id. at 2 (11 5).
`
`ORDER — No. 17-cv-07006-LB
`
`5
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`hWN
`\OOONQUI
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-07006-LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 6 of 7
`Case 3:17-cv-07006—LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`hWN
`\OOO\10\M
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`party discovery from the subscriber to try to identify who actually used the subscriber’s IP address
`
`to allegedly infringe the plaintiffs work).
`
`Additionally, requests for pseudonymity have been granted when anonymity is necessary to
`
`preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature. See Does I Thru XXYII v.
`
`Advanced Textile Corp, 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). An allegation that an individual
`
`illegally downloaded adult motion pictures likely goes to matters of a sensitive and highly
`
`personal nature, including one’s sexuality.
`
`Accordingly, the court issues a protective order to the limited extent that any information
`
`regarding the Doe defendant released to Strike 3 Holding by the ISP will be treated as confidential
`
`for a limited duration. See IO Group, Inc. v. Does I-19, No. C 10-03851 SI, 2010 WL 5071605, at
`
`*2 (ND. Cal. 2010). Specifically, Strike 3 Holdings must not publicly disclose that information
`
`until the Doe defendant has the opportunity to file a motion with this court to be allowed to
`
`proceed in this litigation anonymously and that motion is ruled on by the court. Id. Ifthe Doe
`
`defendant fails to file a motion for leave to proceed anonymously within 30 days after his or her
`
`information is disclosed to Strike 3 Holdings’s counsel, this limited protective order will expire.
`
`Id. Given the potential embarrassment associated with being publicly accused of having illegally
`
`downloaded adult motion pictures, if the Doe defendant includes identifying information within
`
`his or her request to proceed anonymously, the court finds good cause to order the papers filed
`
`under seal until the court has the opportunity to rule on the request. See id. at 3 (permitting party
`
`to file under seal a declaration with identifying information). Ifthe Doe defendant includes
`
`identifying information with his or her request to proceed anonymously and the request is placed
`
`under seal, the court will direct the Doe defendant to submit a copy of the under-seal request to
`
`Strike 3 Holdings and will ensure that Strike 3 Holdings has time to respond.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The court GRANTS Strike 3 Holdings’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery with
`
`respect to JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 24.7.7254 as follows.
`
`ORDER — No. 17-cv-07006-LB
`
`6
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-07006-LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 7 of 7
`Case 3:17-cv-07006—LB Document 8 Filed 12/21/17 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`AWN
`\OOONQUI
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1.
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Strike 3 Holding may immediately serve a Rule 45
`
`subpoena on Comcast Cable Communications, LLC to obtain the Doe defendant’s true name and
`
`addresses. The subpoena must have a copy of this order attached.
`
`2.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ISP will haveM from the date of service
`
`upon them to serve the Doe defendant with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this order. The
`
`ISP may serve the Doe defendant using any reasonable means, including written notice sent to his
`
`or her last known address, transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service.
`
`3.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Doe defendant will haveM from the date of
`
`service upon him or her to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash
`
`or modify the subpoena) with the court that issued the subpoena. If that 30-day period lapses
`
`Without the Doe defendant contesting the subpoena, the ISP will haveM to produce the
`
`information responsive to the subpoena to Strike 3 Holdings.
`
`4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the subpoenaed entity must preserve any subpoenaed
`
`information pending the resolution of any timely-filed motion to quash.
`
`5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant to this order
`
`must confer with Strike 3 Holdings and may not assess any charge in advance of providing the
`
`information requested in the subpoena. The ISP that receives a subpoena and elects to charge for
`
`the costs of production must provide a billing summary and cost reports that serve as a basis for
`
`such billing summary and any costs claimed by the ISP.
`
`6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Strike 3 Holdings must serve a copy of this order along
`
`with any subpoenas issued pursuant to this order to the necessary entities.
`
`7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any information disclosed to Strike 3 Holdings in
`
`response to a Rule 45 subpoena may be used by Strike 3 Holdings solely for the purpose of
`
`protecting Strike 3 Holdings’s rights as set forth in its complaint.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: December2l, 2017 MK
`
`ORDER — No. 17-cv-07006-LB
`
`7
`
`LAUREL BEELER
`
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`