MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moves for certain expedited discovery
to uncover the identity of John Doe Defendant and
consequently facilitate Plaintiff's service of the [1]
Complaint. Doe Defendant, who is currently known to Plaintiff
only by internet protocol (“IP”) address
73.39.64.121, allegedly downloaded Plaintiff's
copyrighted content without authorization. Plaintiff proposes
to serve a third-party subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 45 on Doe Defendant's internet service provider
(“ISP”), Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
(“Comcast Cable”), that would require Comcast
Cable to provide certain identifying information about Doe
Defendant to Plaintiff. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's
[1] Complaint and [4] Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party
Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference, the relevant legal
authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and shall
permit limited, expedited discovery at this time.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Factual Context
The
Court shall draw on Plaintiff's representations in the
[1] Complaint for the few factual details pertinent to this
motion. Plaintiff evidently owns the copyright to certain
adult motion pictures that Plaintiff distributes through
adult websites and DVDs. Compl., ECF No. 1
(“Compl.”), ¶¶ 2-3, 31. Doe Defendant
has allegedly infringed Plaintiff's copyright protection
by anonymously downloading and distributing twenty-nine of
Plaintiff's movies using the BitTorrent system.
Id. ¶¶ 4-5, 23. While Doe Defendant is
known to Plaintiff only through IP address 73.39.64.121, this
address is serviced by ISP Comcast Cable, which Plaintiff has
reason to believe possesses further identifying information
about Doe Defendant. See Id. ¶ 5.
B.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff
filed the [1] Complaint in pursuit of damages under the
Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101
et seq. Compl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff presently moves
for entry of an order granting leave to serve a third-party
subpoena on Comcast Cable prior to a discovery conference
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), “so that
Plaintiff may learn Defendant's identity, investigate
Defendant's role in the infringement, and effectuate
service.” Mem. of P&A in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot.
for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule
26(f) Conference, ECF No. 4-6 (“Pl.'s Mem.”),
at 1-2. Plaintiff has attempted to provisionally satisfy the
Court of personal jurisdiction over Doe Defendant by
indicating that geolocation technology pinpoints Doe
Defendant's IP address at a physical location in the
District of Columbia. Id. at 6. Should the Court
grant Plaintiff's Motion, Plaintiff suggests that the
Court consider issuing a protective order that would permit
Doe Defendant to proceed anonymously. Id. at 8.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A
plaintiff who seeks to conduct expedited discovery prior to
the Rule 26(f) conference in order to learn the identity of
putative defendants requests “what is in essence
jurisdictional discovery.” Exquisite Multimedia,
Inc. v. Does 1-336, No. 11-1976, 2012 WL 177885, at *1
(D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2012). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)
explains that parties may generally seek discovery only after
a Rule 26(f) conference, “except . . . when authorized
by . . . court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). The
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) has held that
“Rule 26 ‘vests the trial judge with broad
discretion to tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate the
sequence of discovery.'” Watts v. SEC, 482
F.3d 501, 507 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Crawford-El v.
Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998)).
To
determine whether to authorize discovery prior to a Rule
26(f) conference in a particular case, courts in this Circuit
have applied a “good cause” standard. See AF
Holdings, LLC v. Cox Commc'ns Inc., 752 F.3d 990,
995 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1));
Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. Does 1-6, 527 F.Supp.2d
1, 2 (D.D.C. 2007) (applying this standard in John Doe
copyright infringement case). In order to obtain
jurisdictional discovery, a plaintiff must “have at
least a good faith belief that such discovery will enable it
to show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the
defendant[ ].” AF Holdings, LLC, 752 F.3d at
995 (quoting Caribbean Broad. Sys., Ltd. v. Cable &
Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 1998))
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Exponential
Biotherapies, Inc. v. Houthoff Buruma N.V., 638
F.Supp.2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2009) (recognizing that
“[j]urisdictional discovery . . . is justified only if
the plaintiff reasonably demonstrates that it can supplement
its jurisdictional allegations through discovery”)
(quoting Kopff v. Battaglia, 425 F.Supp.2d 76, 89
(D.D.C. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
“‘Mere conjecture or speculation' is not
enough” to justify jurisdictional discovery.
Exponential Biotherapies, Inc., 638 F.Supp.2d at
11-12 (quoting FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Mkts., Ltd.,
529 F.3d 1087, 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2008)).
The
D.C. Circuit has specifically discussed the approach to
personal jurisdiction over anonymous defendants where a
plaintiff seeks jurisdictional discovery in a copyright
infringement action. “[U]nder the District of
Columbia's long-arm statute, which along with the Due
Process Clause governs this question, the only conceivable
way that personal jurisdiction might properly be exercised
over these Doe defendants is if they are residents of the
District of Columbia or at least downloaded the copyrighted
work in the District.” AF Holdings, LLC, 752
F.3d at 996 (citation omitted); see also D.C. Code
§ 13-422 (domicile in the District of Columbia);
id. § 13- 423(a)(3) (tortious injury in the
District of Columbia). “[G]eolocation services, which
enable anyone to estimate the location of Internet users
based on their IP addresses, ” are “sufficiently
accurate to provide at least some basis for determining
whether a particular subscriber might live in the District of
Columbia.” AF Holdings, LLC, 752 F.3d at 996;
see also Nu Image, Inc. v. Doe, 799 F.Supp.2d 34, 41
(D.D.C. 2011) (holding that “the Plaintiff has a good
faith basis to believe a putative defendant may be a
District of Columbia resident if a geolocation service places
his/her IP address within the District of Columbia, or within
a city located within 30 miles of the District of
Columbia”).
III.
DISCUSSION
Upon
consideration of the relevant legal authorities and
Plaintiff's pleadings, the Court finds that good cause
exists for Plaintiff's requested expedited discovery.
First, the Court shall be unable to administer any further
proceedings in this case absent identification of Doe
Defendant. See Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19, 551
F.Supp. 2d. 1, 4, 6 (D.D.C. 2008) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.).
Second, Plaintiff has established a good faith basis for
believing that Doe Defendant is a District of Columbia
resident. In Plaintiff's [1] Complaint, Plaintiff alleges
that it “used IP address geolocation technology by
Maxmind Inc. (‘Maxmind'), an industry-leading
provider of IP address intelligence and online fraud
detection tools, to determine that Defendant's IP address
traced to a physical address in this District.” Compl.
¶ 9. Cf. AF Holdings, LLC, 752 F.3d at 996
(finding that plaintiff-appellee's “refusal to
cabin its suit and corresponding discovery requests to
individuals whom it has some realistic chance of successfully
suing in this district demonstrates that it has not
‘sought the information because of its relevance to the
issues' that might actually be litigated here”
(quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S.
340, 353 (1978))). Accordingly, in an exercise of this
Court's broad discretion under Rule 26, the Court shall
grant Plaintiff leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP
identified in Exhibit A of the [1] Complaint, Comcast Cable,
for the purpose of identifying Doe Defendant's true
identity prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. See
Compl., Ex. A (containing file hashes associated with IP
address 73.39.64.121).
Plaintiff
is permitted to engage in limited, expedited discovery in
order to obtain the identity of Doe Defendant by serving a
Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP Comcast Cable that seeks the true
name and address of Doe Defendant. See Pl.'s
Mot. at 2. Any information disclosed to Plaintiff in response
to the Rule 45 subpoena may be used by Plaintiff solely for
the purpose of protecting Plaintiff's rights as set forth
in the [1] Complaint. If and when the ISP is served with the
subpoena, the ISP shall give written notice, which may
include e-mail notice, to the subscriber in question within
ten (10) business days. This notice shall take place prior to
releasing the subscriber's identifying information to
Plaintiff. If the ISP and/or Doe Defendant want to move to
quash the subpoena, the party must do so before the return
date of the subpoena, which shall be no earlier than thirty
(30) days from the date of service. The ISP shall preserve
any subpoenaed information pending the resolution of any
timely filed motion to quash. Plaintiff shall provide the ISP
with a copy of this ...