UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
November 15, 2011
NEW SENSATIONS, INC.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING DOE DEFENDANT #37's MOTION TO (I.P. Address 126.96.36.199) DISMISS
18 On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed this lawsuit against 1,474 19 Doe Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to 20 Plaintiff's exclusive license, ("Big Bang Theory: A XXX Parody"), using an internet peer-to-peer file 21 sharing network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322. 22 Compl. ¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's Application for 23 Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 13. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve 24 subpoenas on Does 1-1,474's Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") by serving a Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including 26 the name, address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs 27 provided Does 1-1,474 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-1,474 30 days from 28 the date of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or 1 modify the subpoena). Id. 2 On November 1, 2011, Doe Defendant #37 (I.P. Address 188.8.131.52) filed a Motion to 3 Dismiss. Dkt. No. 22. In his motion, Doe #37 requests that the subpoena be quashed as to him and 4 the case against him dismissed because he does not reside, work, or conduct business in California; 5 has not contracted to supply services in California; the IP address that is identified as assigned to 6 him is not within the jurisdiction of this Court; he has no real property in California; he does not 7 consent to personal jurisdiction in California; he has no business or personal contacts in California; 8 and he has no significant relationship with California. Id. at 3. 9 In response to Defendant's motion, Plaintiff has now filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 36. In its 10 response, Plaintiff argues that it has no means of testing the truthfulness of Defendant's statements 11 because he is attempting to appear anonymously. Plaintiff that the Court, at a minimum, require 12 Defendant to provide his identity and submit a sworn declaration regarding jurisdiction. The Court agrees. As there is no basis for giving any credence to an unsworn statement made by an anonymous person, the Court finds it inappropriate to quash the subpoena, thereby dismissing Doe Defendant #37 from this case, before Plaintiff ha determine whether jurisdiction is proper. 17 Accordingly, Doe Defendant #37's motion to quash is DENIED.
s an opportunity to learn Doe #37's identity and to
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.