Viral DRM LLC v. Maryna Lietucheva
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-04300
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Viral DRM v. Lietucheva, Judge Corley denied without prejudice alternative service because email service was not shown likely to provide notice.
Viral DRM LLC must use a service method that satisfies the applicable foreign-service and due-process requirements unless the court later authorizes an alternative method; the order concerns service of the lawsuit on Maryna Lietucheva.
What happened
Viral DRM LLC sued Maryna Lietucheva, alleging that she copied and re-uploaded its copyrighted extreme-weather videos on YouTube. Viral DRM asked to serve her by email and website posting after obtaining possible identifying information from Google.
The court denied without prejudice the request for alternative service. It found that Viral DRM had not identified the email addresses it intended to use or shown that those addresses were likely to reach Lietucheva and provide notice of the lawsuit.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley concluded that the motion did not satisfy the requirements for service on an individual in a foreign country or constitutional due process. The order disposed of the motion filed as Docket No. 79.
The detailed version
- Viral DRM LLC v. Maryna Lietucheva · No. 3:23-cv-04300
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 11, 2024
Background
Viral DRM LLC alleged that Maryna Lietucheva downloaded, edited, and re-uploaded infringing versions of Viral DRM’s copyrighted media to YouTube. Viral DRM alleged that the activity promoted the YouTube channel EXTREME WEATHER & NATURAL DISASTERS and generated advertising revenue. After filing the lawsuit, Viral DRM obtained permission to subpoena Google for information that could identify the person operating the channel.
Viral DRM then moved for permission to serve Lietucheva by email and by posting notice on a designated website. It proposed using an email address that it said Google provided in response to the subpoena.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service on an individual in a foreign country. Under Rule 4(f)(3), a court may authorize an alternative method of service if an international agreement does not prohibit it. The method must also satisfy due process, meaning it must be reasonably calculated to inform the person about the lawsuit and give that person an opportunity to respond.
The court explained that the Hague Service Convention applies because the United States and Ukraine are parties to it. The court found that the Convention itself did not prohibit court-ordered service by email, but that fact did not automatically entitle Viral DRM to use email service.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Viral DRM had not made an adequate showing that email service would satisfy due process. Viral DRM did not identify the email address or addresses it intended to use and did not attach Google’s response to the subpoena. It also did not provide evidence that the address Google supplied was active or likely to reach Lietucheva.
The court noted that a YouTube counter-notice identified the channel as registered to Kevin MacLeod and listed the email address lety4evam@gmail.com. Because Viral DRM sued Lietucheva rather than MacLeod, the court found that Viral DRM appeared to contend the information was inaccurate, but it had not explained the discrepancy or shown that Google provided another address used to communicate with Lietucheva.
The court also noted that Viral DRM had not shown that it tried to communicate with Lietucheva at the listed or another email address to confirm that the address was legitimate. In addition, the motion referred both to a single email address and to multiple electronic means of contact, leaving unclear whether this was a typographical error or whether multiple addresses existed.
Disposition
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied without prejudice Viral DRM’s motion to serve Lietucheva by alternative means. The order stated that the motion failed to satisfy Rule 4(f) and constitutional due process and disposed of Docket No. 79.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.