Screen Media Ventures v Does

7/27/2019 Screen Media Ventures v Does

1/8

I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF OHI O

EASTERN DI VI SI ON

Scr een Medi a Vent ur es, LLC, :

Pl ai nt i f f , :

v. : Case No. 2: 13- cv- 845

: J UDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, J R.J ohn Does 1- 48, Magi st r at e J udge Kemp

Def endant s. :

ORDER

Thi s mat t er i s bef or e t he Cour t on t he mot i on f or l eave t ot ake di scover y pr i or t o t he Rul e 26( f ) conf er ence f i l ed by

pl ai nt i f f Scr een Medi a Vent ur es, LLC. For t he f ol l owi ng r easons,

t he mot i on f or l eave ( #3) wi l l be deni ed. Fur t her , Scr een Medi a

wi l l be di r ect ed t o show cause why t hi s case shoul d not be

di smi ssed f or l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on.

I .

Thi s i s a copyr i ght i nf r i ngement and cont r i but or y copyr i ght

i nf r i ngement case i nvol vi ng t he f i l e t r ansf er t echnol ogy known asBi t Tor r ent . The use of t hi s t echnol ogy, whi ch al l ows peer - t o-

peer f i l e shar i ng, has r esul t ed i n much l i t i gat i on as of l at e.

See, e. g. , Thi r d Degr ee Fi l ms, I nc. v. J ohn Does 1- 72, 2013 WL

1164024 ( E. D. Mi chi gan March 18, 2013) ( pr ovi des det ai l ed

expl anat i on of Bi t Tor r ent f i l e- shar i ng pr ot ocol ) . The f ocus of

t he l i t i gat i on has been t he al l eged use of t hi s t echnol ogy to

unl awf ul l y r epr oduce and di st r i but e vi a t he i nt er net copyr i ght ed

mot i on pi ct ur es. The par t i cul ar mot i on pi ct ur e at i ssue i n t hi s

case i s I nf ected.

I n t hi s case, Scr een Medi a has i dent i f i ed 48 J ohn Doe

def endant s by t he i nt er net pr ot ocol ( I P) addr ess assi gned t o them

by t hei r i nt er net servi ce pr ovi der s ( I SPs) . Scr een Medi a has

at t ached t o i t s compl ai nt t he I SP f or each def endant , t he t or r ent

Case: 2:13-cv-00845-EAS-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 09/23/13 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 65


2/8

f i l e copi ed and di st r i but ed by t hem, and t hei r l ocat i on at t he

t i me of t he al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng downl oad. Thr ough i t s cur r ent

mot i on, Scr een Medi a seeks t o ser ve a Rul e 45 subpoena on t he

I SPs t hat i ssued t he I P addr esses t o uncover t he i dent i t y of t he

account hol der s of t hese I P addr esses, i ncl udi ng t hei r names,

cur r ent and per manent addresses, t el ephone number s and emai l

addr esses. The i dent i f i ed I SPs i ncl ude Cl ear Wi r el ess, LLC, Com

Net , Comcast Cabl e, Eart hl i nk, Embarq Corporat i on ( Embarq

Communi cat i ons, I nc. ) , Fr ont i er Communi cat i ons, Hor i zon Tel com,

Hughes Net wor k Syst ems, Vi asat Comuni cat i ons, Wi deOpenWest , and

Wi l dbl ue Communi cat i ons. Scr een Medi a st at es t hat any

i nf or mat i on di scl osed i n r esponse to t he subpoena wi l l be used

onl y f or t he pur pose of pr ot ect i ng i t s r i ght s under t he Copyr i ght

Act .

I I .

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 26( d) pr ovi des gener al l y t hat di scover y may not

begi n pr i or t o t he Rul e 26( f ) conf er ence. However , Rul e 26( d)

al so pr ovi des t hat expedi t ed di scover y may be conduct ed pr i or t o

t hat conf er ence when aut hor i zed by cour t order . Consequent l y, a

di st r i ct cour t has t he di scret i on t o per mi t di scover y pr i or t o a

Rul e 26( f ) conf er ence. See, e. g. , Qwest Communs. I nt ' l I nc. v.

Wor l dquest Net wor ks, I nc. , 213 F. R. D. 418, 419 ( D. Col o. 2003) .

Cour t s wi t hi n t he Si xt h Ci r cui t r equi r e a showi ng of good cause

i n or der t o aut hor i ze expedi t ed di scover y. Tesuco Hol di ngs Lt d.

v. Does 1- 12, 2012 WL 6607894 ( E. D. Tenn. December 18, 2012) .

Good cause may be f ound based upon ( 1) al l egat i ons of

copyr i ght i nf r i ngement , ( 2) t he danger t hat t he I SP wi l l not

pr eserve t he i nf or mat i on sought , ( 3) t he nar r ow scope of t he

i nf or mat i on sought , and ( 4) t he concl usi on t hat expedi t ed

di scover y woul d subst ant i al l y cont r i but e t o movi ng t he case

f orward. Best v. Mobi l e St r eams, I nc. , 2012 WL 5996222, *1

( S. D. Ohi o November 30, 2012) , ci t i ng Ar i st a Records, LLC v. Does

- 2-



3/8

1- 9, 2008 WL 2982265 ( S. D. Ohi o J ul y 29, 2008) . Cour t s al so l ook

t o whether evi dence woul d be l ost or dest r oyed wi t h t i me and

whet her t he pr oposed di scover y i s nar r owl y t ai l or ed. I d. ; see

al so Ar i st a Recor ds, LLC v. Does 1- 15, 2007 WL 5254326 ( S. D. Ohi o

May 17, 2007) .

I I I .

Scr een Medi a contends t hat i t has demonst r at ed good cause

under t he st andards descr i bed above. On t hi s i ssue, Scr een Medi a

asser t s t hat i t can show i r r epar abl e har m f r om t he i nf r i ngement

of t he copyr i ght ed mot i on pi ct ur e. Accor di ng t o Scr een Medi a, i t

has a val i d copyr i ght i n t he mot i on pi ct ur e, def endant s had

access t o the f i l m, and subst ant i al si mi l ar i t y exi st s bet ween i t s

copyr i ght ed wor k and t he al l eged i nf r i ngi ng wor k. Fur t her ,

Scr een Medi a argues t hat def endant s wi l l not be pr ej udi ced by the

pr oposed expedi t ed di scover y because i t i s nar r owl y t ai l or ed and

sought f or a ver y l i mi t ed pur pose. Fi nal l y, i t cont ends t hat i t

has no ot her means f or obt ai ni ng t he i dent i t i es of t he Doe

def endant s.

Scr een Medi a al so ar gues t hat cour t s t hr oughout t he

count r y have consi st ent l y gr ant ed mot i ons f or expedi t ed

di scover y i n act i ons agai nst Bi t Tor r ent def endant s. The Cour t s

r evi ew of t he aut hor i t y ci t ed by Scr een Medi a i ndi cat es t hat t hi s

i s gener al l y t r ue. Cour t s wi t hi n t he Si xt h Ci r cui t have f ound

good cause and gr ant ed mot i ons f or expedi t ed di scovery i n such

act i ons as wel l . See, e. g. , Vi si on Fi l ms, I nc. v. Does 1- 16,

2013 WL 1385206 ( E. D. Tenn. Apr i l 3, 2013) ; Mal i bu Medi a, LLC v.

J ohn Does 1- 9, 2013 WL 142083 ( E. D. Mi ch. J anuar y 11,

2013) ( gr ant i ng mot i on i n par t ) .

I n gr ant i ng expedi t ed di scover y i n Bi t Tor r ent cases, cour t s

have f ound sever al f act or s si gni f i cant . One such f act or i s the

speci f i ci t y wi t h whi ch t he def endant s have been i dent i f i ed,

i ncl udi ng t he assi gned I P addr esses, t he dat e and t i me of t he

- 3-



4/8

al l eged i l l egal downl oad, t he hash i dent i f i er of t he downl oaded

f i l e, t he I SP, and t he l ocat i on of t he I P addr ess. Al so

si gni f i cant ar e t he st eps t aken by t he pl ai nt i f f t o l ocat e and

i dent i f y t he Doe def endant s. Fur t her , cour t s have l ooked t o

whet her t he el ement s of a copyr i ght i nf r i ngement cl ai m have been

pl ed. Cour t s al so have consi der ed whet her t he pr oposed di scover y

seeks i nf or mat i on l i kel y t o l ead t o i nf or mat i on whi ch woul d al l ow

a pl ai nt i f f t o ef f ect uat e ser vi ce on t he def endant s. Fi nal l y,

cour t s have consi der ed t he l i kel i hood of pr ej udi ce t o any al l eged

i nf r i nger s. See, e. g. , Vi si on Fi l ms, 2013 WL 1385203, at *2.

I V.

The Cour t has r evi ewed Scr een Medi a s compl ai nt and cur r ent

mot i on. Based on t hi s r evi ew, t he Cour t i s not convi nced t hat

Scr een Medi a owns an excl usi ve r i ght under a copyr i ght . Rather ,

based on t he cur r ent st at e of t he r ecor d, i t may wel l be t hat

Scr een Medi a l acks st andi ng t o sue f or copyr i ght i nf r i ngement .

Thi s i s so f or t he f ol l owi ng r easons.

Under 17 U. S. C. 106, t he owner of a copyr i ght has t he

excl usi ve r i ght s t o do and t o aut hor i ze any of t he f ol l owi ng si x

speci f i c r i ght s:

( 1) t o repr oduce t he copyr i ght ed wor k i n copi es orphonorecords;

( 2) t o pr epare der i vat i ve works based upon t hecopyr i ght ed work;

( 3) t o di st r i but e copi es or phonor ecor ds of t hecopyr i ght ed wor k t o the publ i c by sal e or othert r ansf er of owner shi p, or by rent al , l ease, or l endi ng;( 4) i n t he case of l i t er ar y, musi cal , dr amat i c, and

chor eogr aphi c works, pant omi mes, and mot i on pi ct ur esand ot her audi ovi sual wor ks, t o per f or m t he copyr i ght edwor k publ i cl y;

( 5) i n t he case of l i t er ar y, musi cal , dr amat i c, andchoreogr aphi c wor ks, pant omi mes, and pi ct or i al ,gr aphi c, or scul pt ur al wor ks, i ncl udi ng t he i ndi vi dual

- 4-



5/8

i mages of a mot i on pi ct ur e or ot her audi ovi sual wor k,t o di spl ay t he copyr i ght ed wor k publ i cl y; and( 6) i n t he case of sound r ecor di ngs, t o per f or m t hecopyr i ght ed wor k publ i cl y by means of a di gi t al audi ot r ansmi ssi on.

17 U. S. C. 106

Sect i on 201( d) ( 1) pr ovi des t hat owner shi p may be t r ansf er r ed

i n whol e, or i n part , by any means of conveyance or by oper at i on

of l aw. The st at ut e def i nes t he t r ansf er of copyr i ght owner shi p

as an assi gnment , mor t gage, excl usi ve l i cense, or any ot her

conveyance, al i enat i on, or hypot hecat i on of a copyr i ght or of any

of t he excl usi ve ri ght s compr i sed i n a copyr i ght , whet her or not

i t i s l i mi t ed i n t i me or pl ace of ef f ect, but not i ncl udi ng a

nonexcl usi ve l i cense. 17 U. S. C. 101. Fur t her , any of t he

excl usi ve r i ght s i ncl udi ng any subdi vi si on of any of t he r i ght

speci f i ed by 106, may be t r ansf er r ed as pr ovi ded by cl ause ( 1)

and owned separatel y. The owner of any part i cul ar excl usi ve

r i ght i s ent i t l ed, t o t he ext ent of t hat r i ght , t o al l of t he

pr ot ect i on and r emedi es accor ded t o t he copyr i ght owner . . . 17

U. S. C. 201( d) ( 2) . War ner / Chappel l Musi c, I nc. V. Bl ue Moon

Vent ures, 2011 WL 662691 ( M. D. Tenn. Febr uar y 14, 2011) .

The st at ut e f ur t her provi des t hat t he l egal or benef i ci al

owner of an excl usi ve r i ght i s ent i t l ed t o i nst i t ut e an act i on

f or any i nf r i ngement of t hat par t i cul ar r i ght commi t t ed whi l e he

or she i s t he owner of i t . 17 U. S. C. 501( b) . That i s, t o

have st andi ng t o br i ng sui t , a par t y must have some ownershi p

r i ght s over at l east par t of t he excl usi ve r i ght f or whi ch he

wi shes to sue. War ner / Chappel l , supr a, at * ; see al so

Ri ght haven LLC v. Wol f , 813 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1271- 1272 ( D. Col o.

2011) ( onl y par t i es wi t h a l egal l y r ecogni zed i nt er est i n

copyr i ght as del i neat ed i n 106 ( l egal owner s ) , and par t i es who

st and t o benef i t f r om t he l egal di ssemi nat i on of copyr i ght ed

mat er i al ( benef i ci al owner s ) have t he r i ght t o sue f or

- 5-



6/8

i nf r i ngement under 501( b) of t he Copyr i ght Act . ) . However ,

[ t ] he r i ght t o sue f or an accr ued cl ai m f or i nf r i ngement i s not

an excl usi ve r i ght under 106. Si l ver s v. Sony Pi ct ur es

Ent er t ai nment , I nc. , 402 F. 3d 881, 885 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) . As a

r esul t , t he assi gnment of a r i ght t o sue wi t hout t he t r ansf er of

an associ at ed excl usi ve r i ght does not conf er st andi ng t o sue.

I d. at 884, 890.

The above pr i nci pl es r ecent l y wer e appl i ed speci f i cal l y i n

t he Bi t Tor r ent cont ext i n Cont r a Pi r acy v. Does 1- 2919, 2013 WL

2403589 ( N. D. Cal . May 31, 2013) . I n t hat case, t he cour t f ound

t hat , based on t he r ecor d bef or e i t , t he pl ai nt i f f appear ed t o

have been ass i gned not hi ng beyond a bar e r i ght t o sue and t hat

t hi s r ai sed a quest i on of st andi ng. Of par t i cul ar concer n t o t he

cour t wer e t he vague al l egat i ons of t he compl ai nt t hat pl ai nt i f f

was t he excl usi ve assi gnee of al l enf or cement r i ght s and

i nt er est wor l dwi de, wi t h t he f ul l aut hor i t y t o pur sue and

pr osecut e any causes of act i on wi t h r espect t o t he Wor k. I d.

at *2. Fur t her , pl ai nt i f f had ar gued i n i t s appl i cat i on f or

di scover y that i t hol ds t he excl usi ve enf or cement r i ght s i n t he

r egi st er ed, copyr i ght ed Wor k and t hat t hi s assi gnment i s

l i mi t ed. I d. I n l i ght of what i t vi ewed as a l ack of

expl anat i on of t he meani ng of enf or cement r i ght s, t he cour t

deni ed pl ai nt i f f s appl i cat i on f or ear l y di scover y and di r ect ed

pl ai nt i f f t o show cause why t he case shoul d not be di smi ssed f or

l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi cti on. I d. Fol l owi ng br i ef i ng and

or al ar gument , t he cour t di smi ssed t he case f i ndi ng t hat t he

excl usi ve r i ght s assi gned t o t he pl ai nt i f f wer e mer el y i l l usor y

and t hat t he pl ai nt i f f hel d not hi ng mor e t han t he bar e r i ght t o

sue. Cont r a Pi r acy v. Does, 1- 2919, 2013 WL 3828771 ( N. D. Cal .

J ul y 23, 2013) .

I n t hi s case, Scr een Medi a makes si mi l ar vague al l egat i ons

r egar di ng i t s owner shi p r i ght s. For exampl e, i t al l eges i n t he

- 6-



7/8

compl ai nt t hat i t has been t he hol der of t he per t i nent excl usi ve

r i ght s i n t he Mot i on Pi ct ur e i nf r i nged by Def endant s ( Exhi bi t

A) . See Compl ai nt ( #1) , 14. Exhi bi t A t o t he compl ai nt l i st s

t he aut hor of t he work and copyr i ght cl ai mant as I nf ect ed LLC.

At t ached t o Exhi bi t A i s Exhi bi t A- 1, capt i oned as Copyr i ght

Regi st r at i on Assi gnment Recor dat i on Document at i on. Thi s exhi bi t

i s an e- mai l dat ed August 22, 2013 whi ch al so l i st s I nf ect ed LLC

as t he copyr i ght cl ai mant . Al so at t ached i s Exhi bi t A- 2,

capt i oned as Sal es Agent Conf i r mat i on. Thi s one- page, t yped

document i n l et t er f orm, but not on what r easonabl y coul d be

descri bed as of f i ci al l et t er head, i s dat ed Apr i l 24, 2013, and i s

addr essed t o To whom i t may concer n. Accordi ng t o t hi s

document , Scr een Medi a i s aut hor i zed:

by i t sel f , or i n t he name of I nf ect ed LLC asr equi r ed by l aw, or t hr ough an appr opr i at e ant i - pi r acyorgani zat i on t o under t ake such act i ons as Scr een Medi aVent ur es LLC bel i eves necessar y or appr opr i at e topr ot ect agai nst pi r acy of any of t he l i censed r i ght s i nt he I NFECTED t hr oughout t he ter r i t or y f or t he agencyper i od and any appl i cabl e di st r i but i on t er m, as set outi n t he agency agr eement . Such act i ons may i ncl uder egi st er i ng t he mot i on pi ct ur e or r ecor di ng anydocument s wi t h gover nment al aut hor i t i es, sendi ng or

havi ng cease and desi st l et t er s and not i ces ofi nf r i ngement sent , and br i ngi ng, pr osecut i ng, def endi ngand appear i ng i n al l sui t s, act i ons and pr oceedi ngsconcer ni ng any pi r acy, i nf r i ngement or mi sappr opr i at i onof any of t he l i censed r i ght s i n t he mot i on pi ct ur et hr oughout t he t er r i t or y dur i ng t he agency per i od orany appl i cabl e di st r i but i on t er m.

Thi s document cont ai ns a si gnat ure whi ch pur por t s t o be f r om a

member of I nf ect ed LLC, al t hough the member i s not i dent i f i ed by

name. I n i t s mot i on f or ear l y di scover y, Scr een Medi a agai nr ei t er at es t hat i t owns t he excl usi ve r i ght s under t he

r egi st er ed copyr i ght at t ached as Exhi bi t A f or t he Mot i on

Pi ct ur e but t her e i s not hi ng at t ached t o t he mot i on whi ch

pr ovi des any f ur t her expl anat i on of Scr een Medi a s owner shi p

- 7-



8/8

i nt er est.

I n l i ght of al l of t he above, t he Cour t concl udes t hat t hi s

case r ai ses t he i ssue of st andi ng under ci r cumst ances si mi l ar t o

t hose bef or e t he cour t i n Cont r a Pi r acy. Because st andi ng i s a

j ur i sdi ct i onal prer equi si t e, t he Cour t may r ai se i t sua spont e.

A pl ai nt i f f has the bur den of est abl i shi ng st andi ng. Lor en v.

Bl ue Cr oss & Bl ue Shi el d of Mi ch. , 505 F. 3d 598, 60607 ( 6t h Ci r .

2007) . To sat i sf y st andi ng r equi r ement s, a pl ai nt i f f must show:

( 1) i t has suf f er ed an i nj ur y i n f act t hat i s concret e and

par t i cul ar i zed and act ual or i mmi nent , not conj ect ur al or

hypot het i cal ; ( 2) t he i nj ur y i s f ai r l y t r aceabl e t o t he

chal l enged act i on of t he def endant ; and ( 3) i t i s l i kel y, as

opposed t o mer el y specul at i ve, t hat t he i nj ur y wi l l be r edr essed

by a f avor abl e deci si on. I d. I f a pl ai nt i f f cannot sat i sf y t hi s

bur den, t hei r cl ai ms must be di smi ssed f or l ack of subj ect mat t er

j ur i sdi ct i on. I d.

Based on t he cur r ent r ecor d, t he Cour t i s not per suaded t hat

Scr een Medi a has met i t s bur den of est abl i shi ng t hat i t has

st andi ng t o pur sue t hi s copyr i ght i nf r i ngement act i on r el at i ng t o

t he f i l m I nf ect ed. Gi ven t hi s ci r cumst ance, t he Cour t f i nds i t

appr opr i at e t o deny t he appl i cat i on f or ear l y di scover y at t hi s

t i me. Rat her , i n or der t o addr ess t he st andi ng i ssue, t he Cour t

wi l l di r ect Scr een Medi a t o show cause why t hi s case shoul d not

be di smi ssed f or l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on.

V.

For t he r easons st at ed above, t he mot i on f or l eave t o take

di scover y ( #3) i s deni ed. Pl ai nt i f f shal l , wi t hi n f our t een days

of t he date of t hi s or der , show cause why t hi s case shoul d not be

di smi ssed f or l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on.

/ s/ Ter ence P. KempUni t ed St at es Magi st r at e J udge

- 8-


Documents

Screen Media Ventures v Does