UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
December 1, 2011
PACIFIC CENTURY INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE DECLARATION RE: CASE STATUS
For the Northern District of California
Plaintiff's exclusive license, ("
On August 3, 2011, Plaintiff Pacific Century International, Ltd. filed this lawsuit against 48 15 Doe Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to Amateur Creampies - Farrah (Part 2)"), using an internet peer-to- peer file sharing network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 18 101-1322. First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 24, 29, Dkt. No. 6. On October 7, 2011, the Court granted 19 Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 9. The Court 20 permitted Plaintiff to serve subpoenas on Does 1-48's Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") by serving 21 a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe 22 Defendants, including the name, address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-48. Once 23 the ISPs provided Does 1-48 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-48 30 days 24 from the date of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or 25 modify the subpoena). 26 Since granting Plaintiff's request, a check of the Court's docket disclosed that no defendant 27 has appeared and no proof of service has been filed. Further, the Court is aware that this case is but 28 one of the many "mass copyright" cases to hit the dockets of federal district courts across the 1 country in recent months. Like in this case, after filing the suit, the plaintiff seeks discovery from 2 ISPs who 3 possess subscriber information associated with each IP address. With the subscriber information in 4 hand, the court is told, the plaintiff can proceed to name the defendants in the conventional manner 5 and serve each defendant, so that the case may proceed to disposition. This disposition might take 6 the form of settlement, summary judgment, or if necessary, trial. In most, if not all, of these cases, if 7 the plaintiff is permitted the requested discovery, none of the Doe defendants are subsequently 8 named in the cases; instead, the plaintiff's counsel sends settlement demand letters and the 9 defendants are subsequently dismissed either by the Court or voluntarily by the plaintiff. 10 As Plaintiff in this case has yet to name a single Doe Defendant, the Court hereby ORDERS 11 Plaintiff's counsel to file a declaration which provides the following information: 1) Each Doe Defendant listed separately by number and IP address;
3) The date on which Plaintiff served the order granting discovery on the ISP; 15
4) The date on which the ISP served the subpoena on the Doe Defendant; D 16
5) Whether the ISP has provided the Doe Defendant's identifying information and, if provided, the date on which it was provided to Plaintiff;
6) If Plaintiff has obtained the Doe Defendant's identifying
explanation as to why the defendant has not been named and why no
proof of service has been filed, as well as why the Court should not
defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m);
7) If Plaintiff has obtained the Doe Defendant's identifying
information and the location is outside of the Northern District of
California, why the Court
should not dismiss the Doe Defendant for lack of jurisdiction
and/or improper venue.
Plaintiff shall file its status report by December 8, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Doe Defendant's ISP;
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.