CreativeCode Ltd. v. Does
- 3:23-cv-03832
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
CreativeCode Ltd. v. Does: the court, whose judge is unnamed, granted in part immediate and limited discovery to identify Doe defendants.
CreativeCode Ltd.; the unnamed Doe defendants; Google LLC; and any Internet service provider, email provider, technology provider, or other service provider subpoenaed under the order.
What happened
In CreativeCode Ltd. v. Does, CreativeCode asked to take immediate and limited discovery to identify the unnamed defendants.
The court found good cause and allowed CreativeCode to subpoena Google for the defendants’ copyright-related notices and identifying information. The order also permits subpoenas to other providers for additional identifying information, but requires another application before issuing those subpoenas if the initial discovery does not identify the defendants or their locations.
The application was stated to be granted in part and denied in part. The judge’s name is not readable in the opinion text; the court also required notice to subpoenaed entities and gave them at least 30 days to move to cancel a subpoena.
The detailed version
- CreativeCode Ltd. v. Does · No. 3:23-cv-03832
- Nov. 1, 2023
Background
CreativeCode Ltd. sought permission to take immediate and limited discovery before identifying or serving Does 1–20. The opinion says the requested discovery was intended to determine the Doe defendants’ identities and locations for service under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court reviewed the application, exhibits, and related filings and found good cause for early discovery.
Ruling
The order states that CreativeCode’s application was “GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.” It then ordered that the application for immediate and limited discovery was granted. CreativeCode may immediately serve subpoenas under Rule 45 on Google LLC to obtain the Digital Millennium Copyright Act notices submitted by the Doe defendants and identifying information about the notices’ senders. The permitted information includes Google and YouTube account information, email and Internet Protocol addresses, names, current and permanent addresses, telephone numbers, and related metadata.
The order also permits CreativeCode to subpoena an Internet service provider, email provider, or other technology or service provider that may have additional identifying information based on information obtained from Google. The text limits that discovery to identifying information, such as additional Internet Protocol addresses, names, physical addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses. It further states that CreativeCode must file another application to serve additional Rule 45 subpoenas if the limited discovery does not identify the Doe defendants or show their locations.
Other Requirements and Disposition
CreativeCode must serve a copy of the order with each subpoena. A subpoenaed entity seeking to challenge a subpoena must move to cancel it before the subpoena’s return date, which cannot be earlier than 30 days after service. The subpoenaed entity must preserve the subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. The judge’s name is not readable in the supplied opinion text, so this summary identifies the decision-maker as the court.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.