MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. DOE
1:19-cv-02025
D.D.C.Jul 18, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC owns copyrights to adult films and sued a John Doe identified only by IP address 216.15.8.6 for alleged BitTorrent downloading and distribution in violation of the Copyright Act.
- Plaintiff used geolocation tools to trace the IP address to a physical location in the District of Columbia and seeks the subscriber’s identity from ISP RCN Corporation via subpoena so it can effect service.
- Plaintiff moved for leave to serve a third-party subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) conference to obtain the subscriber’s name and address.
- The Court applied the District of Columbia’s “good cause” standard for early discovery and the D.C. Circuit’s requirement that a plaintiff have a good-faith belief personal jurisdiction exists.
- The Court found the suit cannot proceed without identifying the subscriber, that the ISP is the only practical source for identity, and geolocation provides a good-faith basis for asserting D.C. jurisdiction.
- The Court granted the motion but imposed procedural safeguards (ISP notice to subscriber, preservation, limited use of disclosed info, timelines for motions to quash and protective-order requests, and a short confidentiality window before public docketing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether early discovery (pre-Rule 26(f)) to subpoena ISP is permitted | Early subpoena is necessary to identify Doe so the suit can proceed and effect service | (Implicit) Early discovery is premature and intrudes on subscriber privacy absent jurisdictional basis | Court: Granted; good cause shown because identification is necessary to progress case |
| Whether plaintiff has good-faith basis for D.C. personal jurisdiction | Geolocation places IP in D.C., giving good-faith belief jurisdiction exists | (Implicit) Geolocation may be unreliable to establish jurisdiction over unknown defendant | Court: Geolocation suffices to show good-faith basis for jurisdiction for purposes of authorizing early discovery |
| Scope and limits on use of subpoenaed information | Only identification info needed and will be used to prosecute the complaint | Concern that disclosure could harm privacy and coerce settlements | Court: Authorized limited discovery and imposed protective procedural safeguards (notice, preservation, motion timelines, limited use, anonymity request process) |
| Timing and procedures for subscriber challenge | Plaintiff seeks prompt release to proceed | Subscriber needs realistic opportunity to quash or seek protection | Court: Set 21-day ISP notice before release, return date ≥45 days, motions to quash before return date, 30-day window to seek protective order, and 30-day confidentiality before public disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 64 F.3d 47 (D.D.C. 2014) (applies good-cause standard for early discovery)
- AF Holdings, LLC v. Does, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (requires good-faith belief that discovery will show personal jurisdiction)
- Watts v. SEC, 482 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (court has broad discretion to sequence discovery)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1998) (discusses courts’ authority over discovery sequencing)
- Nu Image, Inc. v. Does, 799 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2011) (geolocation can support good-faith belief of D.C. residency)