Cage 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 28 Filed 12/20/12 Page1of3 Page ID #:331

Oo wo nn a fF WO NO

—
So

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx)
Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING PRIOR EARLY
Vv. DISCOVERY ORDERS AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.

This copyright infringement case filed by Plaintiff Ingenuity 13 LLC has been
transferred to this Court. The Court hereby VACATES any prior order in this case
allowing for the issuance of a Rule 45 subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) scheduling
conference. The Court also orders Ingenuity 13 to cease its discovery efforts relating
to or based on information obtained through any abovementioned Rule 45
subpoenas—Ingenuity 13’s previously issued subpoenas in this case are hereby
QUASHED. Within 3 days of this order, Ingenuity 13 must serve a copy of this order
to all parties it subpoenaed in this case.

Further, Ingenuity 13 must submit a discovery status report detailing its
discovery efforts in this case with respect to identifying or locating the Doe Defendant
by December 31, 2012. This report must name all persons that have been identified,
including subscribers, through any Rule 45 subpoenas.

The Court is concerned with the potential for discovery abuse in cases like this.

Ingenuity 13 accuses the Doe Defendant of illegally copying a pornographic video.

Cage 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 28 Filed 12/20/12 Page 2 of3 Page ID #:332

0 wo nn a fF WO NO

Oo NO NH YN NHN NY WN NO NO He Re Re HR HF Rr Rr Rr Rl
oN ON BR We NY KF OD Oo WON DH an FB Wo NY KF OS

But the only information Ingenuity 13 has is the IP address of the Doe Defendant. An
IP address alone may yield subscriber information. But that will only lead to the
person paying for the internet service and not necessarily the actual infringer, who
may be a family member, roommate, employee, customer, guest, or even a complete
stranger. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-10, No. 2:12-cv-01642-RGK-SSx, slip
op. at 4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012). And given the subject matter of Ingenuity 13’s
accusations and the economics of defending such a lawsuit, it is highly likely that the
subscriber would immediately pay a settlement demand—tregardless whether the
subscriber is the actual infringer. This Court has a duty to protect the innocent
citizens of this district from this sort of legal shakedown, even though a copyright
holder’s rights may be infringed by a few deviants. And unlike law enforcement in
child pornography or other internet crime cases, the Court has no guarantee from a
private party that subscriber information will not abused or that it would be used for
the benefit of the public. Thus, when viewed with the public interest in mind, the
Court is reluctant to allow any fishing-expedition discovery when all a plaintiff has is
an IP address—the burden is on the plaintiff to find other ways to more precisely
identify the accused infringer without causing collateral damage.

Thus, the Court hereby ORDERS Ingenuity 13 TO SHOW CAUSE in writing
by December 31, 2012, why early discovery is warranted in this situation. No
appearances are necessary. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff should
ordinarily be allowed discovery to uncover their identities, but discovery may be
denied if it is (1) clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or (2) that the
complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637,
642 (9th Cir. 1980). Ingenuity 13 must demonstrate to the Court, in light of the
Court’s above discussion, how it would proceed to uncover the identity of the actual
infringer once it has obtained subscriber information—given that the actual infringer
may be a person entirely unrelated to the subscriber—while also considering how to

minimize harassment and embarrassment of innocent citizens. Ingenuity 13 must also

Cage 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 28 Filed 12/20/12 Page3of3 Page ID #:333

Oo wo nn a fF WO NO

Oo NO NY NY NHN NY WN NO NO KR Ke HR Fe Rr Fr Rr Rl
oN ON BR We NY KF OD Oo WON DH an FBP WOW NY KF OS

explain how it can guarantee to the Court that any such subscriber information would
not be used to simply coerce a settlement from the subscriber (the easy route), as
opposed to finding out who the true infringer is (the hard route).

Ingenuity 13’s discovery status report and response to this Order to Show Cause
should be filed only in case no. 2:12-cv-6662-ODW(JCx), and should be combined
with the discovery status reports and responses for the related Ingenuity 13 cases.
Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 20, 2012

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE