Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
10-Cv-04381-CW Docket 4 Miscellenious Administrative Request

10-Cv-04381-CW Docket 4 Miscellenious Administrative Request

Ratings: (0)|Views: 31|Likes:
Published by J Doe
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.wordpress.com/io-group-cases/io-group-inc-v-does-1-138/
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.wordpress.com/io-group-cases/io-group-inc-v-does-1-138/

More info:

Published by: J Doe on Jun 14, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/14/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 -1-
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVETO TAKE EARLY DISCOVERYC-10-4381 (HRL)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
D. GILL SPERLEIN (SBN 172887)THE LAW OFFICE OF D. GILL SPERLEIN584 Castro Street, Suite 879San Francisco, California 94114Telephone: (415) 404-6615Facsimile: (415) 404-6616gill@sperleinlaw.com Attorney for plaintiff IO GROUP, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION
IO GROUP, INC. d/b/a TITANMEDIA, a California corporation,Plaintiff,vs.DOES 1-138 individuals,Defendants.________________________________
 ))))))))))))) CASE NO.: C-10-4381 (HRL)PLAINTIFF’S MISCELLANEOUSADMINISTRATIVE REQUESTPURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7-11 FORLEAVE TO TAKE DISCOVERY PRIORTO RULE 26 CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, Plaintiff seeks leave to take limited discovery prior tothe scheduled Rule 26 conference for the reasons set forth herein, and in the concurrentlyfiled Declaration of Michael Eichner in support of this motion. Plaintiff could not obtainstipulation for this motion because Plaintiff cannot identify the Doe Defendants until therequested discovery takes place.
Case4:10-cv-04381-CW Document4 Filed10/08/10 Page1 of 7
 
 -2-
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVETO TAKE EARLY DISCOVERYC-10-4381 (HRL)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Io Group, Inc. is a California corporation doing business as “Titan Media,” with itsprincipal place of business located at 69 Converse Street, San Francisco, California 94103.Titan Media produces, markets, and distributes adult entertainment products, includingInternet website content, videos, DVDs, photographs, etc. Plaintiff operates and maintainsa website by and through which individuals who pay a monthly subscription fee can viewits photographic and audiovisual works. (Complaint at ¶2.)Defendant DOES 1-138 are individuals whose true names and addresses areunknown to Plaintiff. (
 Id 
. at ¶3.) DOE Defendants 1 through 138 distributed unauthorizedand infringing copies of Plaintiff’s audiovisual works. (
 Id 
.,
 passim
.)Io Group, Inc. engaged Media Protector International GmbH (Media ProtectorInternational) to locate and document infringing copies of its copyright protected works onthe P2P Network eDonkey2000. (Decl. of Michael Eichner at ¶2.) Media ProtectorInternational identified locations from which individuals distributed files previouslyverified to be Io Group movies. (
 Id 
. at ¶9.) Media Protector International then recordedthe IP address and the exact time and date at which it witnessed the infringing files. (
 Id 
.)Plaintiff can only identify the infringers by way of further investigation.Specifically, in order to determine the identity of the subscribers, Plaintiff must nowsubpoena Verizon Internet, the Internet service provider (ISP) that provided Internet accessto the infringers. Internet access providers only maintain subscriber activity logs for ashort period before destroying the information contained in the logs. (
 Id 
. at ¶10.)
Case4:10-cv-04381-CW Document4 Filed10/08/10 Page2 of 7
 
 -3-
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVETO TAKE EARLY DISCOVERYC-10-4381 (HRL)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks leave from the Court to serve a Rule 45 third-party subpoenaon Verizon Internet prior to the Rule 26 Case Management Conference in this matter.Federal law provides for the relief Plaintiff seeks.
ARGUMENTFederal Rules Allow for Early Discovery
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that, generally, a party may notinitiate discovery before the parties have met and conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f).However, Rule 26(d) provides that a court may authorize earlier discovery “for theconvenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.26(d). A court may grant a request to take discovery prior the parties’ meeting under Rule26(f) where the requesting party demonstrates good cause.
See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc.
,
 
208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be foundwhere the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice,outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.”
 Id 
. Courts frequently find good cause incases involving claims of infringement and unfair competition.
 Id 
.Courts have recognized that, “[s]ervice of process can pose a special dilemma forplaintiffs in cases like this in which the tortuous activity occurred entirely on-line.”
Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com
, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Accordingly,courts have developed the following factors to consider when granting motions forexpedited discovery to identify anonymous Internet users: (1) whether the plaintiff canidentify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the court can determine thatdefendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) all previous
Case4:10-cv-04381-CW Document4 Filed10/08/10 Page3 of 7

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->