Will Co Ltd v. Does 1-20
3:20-cv-05666
W.D. Wash.Mar 21, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Will Co. Ltd., a Japanese company owning copyrights to adult films, sued Fellow Shine Group Ltd. (FSG) and Kam Keung Fung alleging Avgle.com displayed Plaintiff’s works without authorization and targeted U.S. users.
- Plaintiff alleges Avgle has substantial U.S. traffic, English-language pages, U.S.-oriented notices, Cloudflare DNS/CDN use, and geo-targeted ads as evidence of targeting the U.S.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court allowed limited jurisdictional discovery before deciding that motion.
- Plaintiff served broad discovery; Defendants objected as overbroad or irrelevant to jurisdiction.
- Magistrate Judge Christel granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motions to compel: ordered tailored production (mostly Jan 2020–present), denied some requests as unnecessary or invoked by defendants’ representations, and refused fee-shifting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting contracts, invoices, communications (Reqs 3–6 FSG / 1–4 Fung) | Hosting records (any location) may show deliberate targeting or services optimized for U.S. viewers. | Servers hosted in Netherlands; no U.S.-specific hosting documents exist. | Granted limited: produce hosting contracts/invoices/payments/communications for all hosting providers (regardless of location) from Jan 2020–present. |
| Payment-processor records (Reqs 7–10 FSG / 5–8 Fung) | Payment processor ties to U.S. users could show intent to target U.S. market. | Avgle is free; no U.S. user payments; revenue is ad-based. | Denied: Defendants’ response that no responsive documents exist is sufficient; nothing to compel. |
| Ad-broker contracts/payments/communications (Reqs 11–14 FSG / 9–12 Fung) | Ad-broker arrangements (geotargeting terms, incentives) could show defendants insisted on U.S. targeting. | Produced one Canadian contract; say they pay flat rates and have no input on geotargeting. | Granted: produce all ad-broker contracts, payments, and communications relating to Avgle ads from Jan 2020–present. |
| Direct advertising agreements/communications with advertisers (Reqs 15–18 FSG / 13–16 Fung) | Direct advertiser communications may show targeted U.S. ad placement. | Producing advertisers would harass businesses; defendants state only two Chinese agreements exist and no U.S. references. | Granted: produce contracts, invoices, payments, communications with any direct advertisers (not through brokers) about Avgle ads from Jan 2020–present. |
| Fung–FSG communications and contracts re Avgle (Reqs 17–18 Fung) | Fung oversaw site creation; communications could reveal business plan and U.S. targeting choices. | Overbroad if not limited to Avgle-related communications; defendant says no U.S.-referencing docs in his control. | Granted limited: produce Fung–FSG communications/contracts related to Fung’s work for FSG on Avgle. |
| Documents referencing hosting companies and the United States (Reqs 24 & 26 FSG) | Such documents could show why defendants chose hosts or ruled out U.S.-restrictive hosts. | Overbroad and unduly burdensome; U.S.-referencing emails could be unrelated private communications. | Denied as written; granted narrowly: produce documents that reference both website hosting companies and the United States within the same document. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laub v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) (district courts have broad discretion to permit jurisdictional discovery)
- Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1986) (discovery ordinarily granted where jurisdictional facts are controverted)
- Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) (discovery principles on jurisdictional issues)
- Rutsky & Co. Ins. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (abuse of discretion where denial of discovery might prevent demonstration of jurisdiction)
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1977) (jurisdictional discovery standards)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts and due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Holland Am. Line, Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450 (9th Cir. 2007) (application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) and due process analysis)
- AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction in copyright cases)
- Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) (plaintiff bears burden to show purposeful direction/availment and relation to forum activities)
- Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure to satisfy any jurisdictional prong defeats jurisdiction)