You are on page 1of 4

Case 1:13-cv-00333-TC

Document 45

Filed 11/18/13

Page 1 of 4

Page ID#: 129

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) DOE #1, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ______________________________ )


COFFIN, Magistrate Judge:

ELF-MAN, LLC,

No. ORDER

1:13-cv-333-TC,

Plaintiff Elf-Man, LLC filed this and other similar actions in early 2013 asserting copyright infringement against 180 users of various BitTorrent clients, identified only by their internet

protocol (IP) addresses.

Plaintiff alleged defendants collectively

interconnected to illegally copy and distribute plaintiff's film

1 - ORDER

Case 1:13-cv-00333-TC

Document 45

Filed 11/18/13

Page 2 of 4

Page ID#: 130

Elf-Man.

Plaintiff

obtained

permission

from

the

court

to

take

discovery, prior to a Rule 26 conference, allowing it to subpoena records from various internet service providers (ISPs) around the State to discover the identities of the BitTorrent users who joined in the distribution of the pieces of the movie Elf-Man. After

Various Doe defendants sought to quash, the court determined that joinder pursued. is inappropriate Consequently, and all that individual cases should be #1 were

Doe defendants

beyond Doe

severed in this case and all outstanding subpoenas were quashed. Plaintiff amended the complaint to name only Doe #1 and

although defendant Doe has filed an answer, defendant has refused to provide any address beyond a post office box or other

identifying information. for purposes

Plaintiff's attempt to contact defendant have gone unanswered. requiring defendant's Accordingly, ISP, Charter

of discovery an order

plaintiff

seeks

Communications, to release the subscriber information related to IP address 96.39.163.229 as of November 30, 2012 at 11:30:15 PM UTC. Plaintiff also seeks leave to issue any necessary further subpoenas to specifically identify defendant Doe and conduct necessary

discovery. Defendant, however, moves to quash asserting that plaintiff is attempting to misuse the court to "acquire victims for the sole

2 - ORDER

Case 1:13-cv-00333-TC

Document 45

Filed 11/18/13

Page 3 of 4

Page ID#: 131

purpose of fraudulently extorting money." 1

But, plaintiff has not Defendant also

made any settlement demands against defendant.

implies that mere identification of his IP address is insufficient to demonstrate copyright violation. The court, of course agrees, Without any further to the person

but that is why discovery must take place. identifying information and discovery

related

associated with the IP address, it can not be reasonably determined if that person such is responsible in the for the download at issue and

whether

download, Therefore,

fact, motion to

constitutes quash is

copyright denied and

infringement. 2

plaintiff's motion for an order permitting Charter Communications to release to plaintiff the subscriber information associated with IP address 96.39.163.229 is allowed along with such further

discovery as is necessary.

Plaintiff "cites" an "attached settlement request," but provides no such documentation. Apparently, plaintiff is referring to previous court orders regarding similar cases in this court in which the court ordered severance. In those orders, the court was concerned with attempts to avoid filing fees and abuse court process by lumping large masses of bittorrent users into one case simply to issue demand letters to purported infringers in hopes of avoiding in-court litigation. That issue has already been addressed and resolved in this case by requiring plaintiff to file against alleged infringers individually. The allegations in the complaint are sufficient to make out a prima facie claim of copyright infringement conducted through the IP address at a specific time. In addition, as the court has previously determined, the discovery request's specificity is sufficient, there is an absence of alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information, and plaintiff has taken adequate steps to locate and identify defendant short of the ISP subpoena. 3 - ORDER
2

Case 1:13-cv-00333-TC

Document 45

Filed 11/18/13

Page 4 of 4

Page ID#: 132

Although not entirely clear,

it appears that defendant also Defendant has

seeks a protective order to maintain his anonymity.

not adequately explained any compelling reasons for such an order, but plaintiff has no objection to a regarding filings. confidentiality Therefore, of temporary protective order identity in public

defendant's

for the time being,

defendant shall remain

identified only as Doe in court pleadings.'

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's motion to release

subpoenaed information on Doe #1, a/k/a IP 96.39.163.229 (#38) is allowed. In addition, defendant's motion to quash (#41) is denied

and defendant's motion for a protective order (#41) is allowed as limited above.

DATED this

~+ /Q

day of November, 2013.

M. COFFIN Magistrate Judge

To the extent defendant seeks a protective order or to quash based on a constitutional right to speak anonymously, there is a no expectation of privacy in conducting peer-to-peer activities and the Constitution does not prevent discovery into such activity. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 2013 WL 6000484@ *19-20 (D.Vt. November 8, 2013) (no expectation of privacy when offering information for distribution to other users in peer-to-peer network and identifying the offering IP address). 4 - ORDER

You might also like