Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

June 9, 2017

LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-10, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference [DE 4], filed by Plaintiff on May 24, 2017. Plaintiff requests leave to issue subpoenas to non-party internet service providers to determine the identity of the Doe Defendants in this case.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff filed its Complaint on May 24, 2017, alleging copyright infringement claims against ten Doe Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the Doe Defendants violated Plaintiff's copyright by downloading and sharing unauthorized copies of London Has Fallen, a movie in which Plaintiff maintains a copyright interest. At this time, the only information Plaintiff has about the Doe Defendants is their Internet Protocol (IP) address, as well as the city in which the alleged infringement occurred. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks to subpoena records from various internet service providers (ISPs) to connect the IP addresses with the Doe Defendants' actual identities.

         II. Standard

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally prohibit discovery from occurring before the parties conduct a Rule 26(f) conference, unless the Court enters an order allowing early discovery for “good cause.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1); Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 283 F.R.D. 556, 557 (N.D. Iowa 2012). Courts consider the following five factors to determine whether there is good cause for early discovery aimed at internet service providers to uncover internet users' identities:

(1) [A] concrete showing of a prima facie claim; (2) a specific discovery request; (3) the absence of alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information; (4) the need for the subpoenaed information to advance the claim; and (5) a minimal expectation of privacy by the defendant in the requested information.

Rotten Records, Inc. v. Doe, 108 F.Supp.3d 132, 133 (W.D.N.Y. 2015); see also First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-500, 276 F.R.D. 241, 248-49 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (quoting Sony Music Entm't v. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 564-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).

         III. Analysis

         Plaintiff meets these requirements. First, Plaintiff has made a prima facie claim of copyright infringement, which consists of two elements: (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). Plaintiff alleges that it maintains a copyright interest in London Has Fallen and that the Doe Defendants copied and distributed London Has Fallen. Second, Plaintiff has identified specific discovery, limited to identifying the Doe Defendants through their internet service providers. Third, Plaintiff does not have an alternative means to match the ISP addresses with the Doe Defendants' identities.

         Fourth, Plaintiff needs the information it seeks to advance its asserted claims. Indeed, without discovering the Doe Defendants' identities, Plaintiff cannot pursue its claims for relief at all. Finally, Plaintiff's interest in learning the Doe Defendants' true identities outweighs the Doe Defendants' privacy interest in sharing copyrighted work through an online file-sharing network. See Rotten Records, 108 F.Supp.3d at 133 (quoting Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2010)).

         In sum, Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested discovery, and early discovery is appropriate. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1); Progressive, 283 F.R.D. at 557.

         IV. Conclusion

         Consistent with the foregoing discussion, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for Leave to Take Discovery prior to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.