IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CANAL STREET FI LMS, I NC. ,
Pl ai nt i f f ,
Case No. : 05- 2013- CA- 40202
J udge: LI SA DAVI DSON
V.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNI CATI ONS,
LLC; BRI GHT HOUSE NETWORKS,
LLC,
Def endant s.
JOHN DOE, I.P. ADDRESS NO. 76.Ill.192.216's, SPECIAL APPEARANCE-
MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT WITH MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
COMES NOW non- par t y " J OHN DOE, " i dent i f i ed onl y by I P
addr ess No. 76. 111. 192. 216, by and t hr ough t he under si gned
at t or ney, i n a speci al , l i mi t ed appear ance^, pur suant t o Rul es
1. 540( b) and 1. 280, Fl or i da Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e, and her eby
moves t hi s Honor abl e Cour t t o ent er a pr ot ect i ve or der t o
pr ohi bi t t he di scl osur e of J ohn Doe' s i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on
and t o vacat e t he f i nal j udgment ent er ed on May 30, 2014.
I. Procedural History
On or about Febr uar y 1, 2013, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a Compl ai nt
i n Equi t y f or Pur e Bi l l of Di scover y agai nst t hr ee I nt er net
ser vi ce pr ovi der s ( "I SP") : Comcast Cabl e Communi cat i ons, LLC,
Br i ght House Net wor ks, LLC, and Road Runner Hol dco, LLC, seeki ng
^ Thi s speci al , l i mi t ed appear ance shal l not be const r ued as a gener al
appear ance. Nei t her J ohn Doe nor t he under si gned at t or ney has been subj ect
t o ser vi ce of pr ocess i n t hi s act i on. Thi s speci al , l i mi t ed appear ance does
not const i t ut e a wai ver or an i nt ent i on t o wai ve ser vi ce of pr ocess.
Filing # 15240666 Electronically Filed 06/25/2014 03:55:35 PM
t o di scover t he names, addr esses, and ot her cont act i nf or mat i on
associ at ed wi t h cer t ai n I P addr esses.
On May 30, 2014, an Or der Compel l i ng Di scover y was gr ant ed,
r equi r i ng t he I SPs t o r eveal t he i dent i t y of each subscr i ber
associ at ed wi t h each I P addr ess.
II. Plaintiff has misused the Bill of Discovery Process
Thi s cour t shoul d ent er a pr ot ect i ve or der and vacat e t he
j udgment because Pl ai nt i f f has mi sused t he bi l l of di scover y
pr ocess and i n doi ng so at t ai ned what amount s t o a voi d
j udgment . A pur e bi l l of di scover y i s an " anci ent equi t abl e
r emedy" t hat " i s usual l y br ought t o obt ai n di scl osur e of f act s
wi t hi n a def endant ' s knowl edge, or of deeds or wr i t i ngs or ot her
t hi ngs i n t he def endant ' s cust ody, or i n t he ai d of pr osecut i on
or def ense of an act i on i n some ot her cour t . " Dani el Mor man, The
Complaint for A Pure Bill of Discovery A Living, Breathing
Modern Day Dinosaur?, Fl a. B. J . , Mar ch 2004, at 50. The r eason
pur e bi l l s of di scover y ar e no l onger necessar y i n moder n
pr act i ce i s because di scover y r ul es wer e i nser t ed i nt o t he
Fl or i da Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e. I d.
"A pur e bi l l of di scover y ' l i es t o obt ai n- t he di scl osur e of
f act s wi t hi n t he def endant ' s knowl edge, or deeds or wr i t i ngs or
ot her t hi ngs i n hi s cust ody, i n ai d of t he pr osecut i on or
def ense of an act i on pendi ng or about t o be commenced i n some
ot her cour t . ' " Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Frazier, 696 So. 2d
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 2 of 15
1369, 1370- 71 ( Fl a. 4t h DCA 1997) ( quot i ng First Nat'1 Bank of
Miami v. Dade-Broward Co., 171 So. 510, 510- 11 ( Fl a. 1936) ) . A
bi l l of di scover y shoul d show:
t he mat t er s concer ni ng whi ch t he di scover y
asked f or i s sought , t he i nt er est s of t he
sever al par t i es i n t he subj ect of t he
i nqui r y, t he compl ai nant ' s r i ght t o have t he
r el i ef pr ayed, i t s t i t l e and i nt er est , and
what t he r el at i onshi p of same i s t o t he
di scover y cl ai med, and t hat t he di scover y so
at t empt ed t o be had i s mat er i al t o t he
compl ai nant ' s r i ght s t hat have been dul y
br ought i nt o l i t i gat i on on t he common- l aw
si de of t he cour t under ci r cumst ances t hat
ent i t l e t he compl ai nant t o a di scl osur e of
what i s necessar y t o mai nt ai n i t s own cl ai m
i n t hat l i t i gat i on, and not t hat of t he
def endant i n t he case.
I n t he i nst ant case. Pl ai nt i f f , Canal Fi l ms, has used t he
pur e bi l l of di scover y i mpr oper l y. A pur e bi l l of di scover y "i s
not t o be used as a f i shi ng expedi t i on t o see i f causes of
act i on exi st . " Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Frazier, 696 So. 2d
1369, 1371 ( Fl a. 4t h DCA 1997) . Fur t her mor e, "a Pur e Bi l l of
Di scover y may not be used t o obt ai n i nf or mat i on, pr i or t o t he
br i ngi ng of an act i on at l aw, f r om t hi r d- par t y wi t nesses. "
Schwab V. Television 12 of Jacksonville, Inc., 21 Medi a L. Rep.
1157, 1993 WL 169181 ( Fl a. Ci r . Ct . 1993) .
Her e, Pl ai . rxti f f has at t empt ed j ust t hat : t o use t he bi l l of
di scover y pr ocess as a f i shi ng expedi t i on t o ci r cumvent havi ng
t o f i l e a separ at e f eder al l awsui t , and pay a f i l i ng f ee, f or
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 3 of 15
each and ever y " J ohn Doe, " and t o obt ai n i nf or mat i on t o " see i f
causes of act i on exi s t . " Mor eover , by f i l i ng t hi s l awsui t i n
st at e, r at her t han f eder al cour t ( wher e copyr i ght cases bel ong) ,
Pl ai nt i f f i s at t empt i ng t o ci r cumvent wel l - est abl i shed l aw of
congr ess and of our f eder al cour t s by goi ng on a massi ve f i shi ng
expedi t i on f or t he cost of one f i l i ng f ee.
A. This court lacks subject, matter jurisdiction to hear
this case
As an i ni t i al mat t er , i t i s i mpor t ant t o addr ess t he i ssue
of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on, whi ch t hi s cour t l acks. Thi s i s
a copyr i ght case. Feder al cour t s have excl usi ve j ur i sdi ct i on
over copyr i ght cl ai ms. 28 U. S. C. 1338( a) ; see Jacobs Wind
Elec. Co. V. Dep't of Transp., 626 So. 2d 1333, 1337- 38 ( Fl a.
1993) ( hol di ng t hat st at e cour t s have no j ur i sdi ct i on t o
consi der cl ai ms " ar i si ng under " ci vi l act i ons gr ant ed
excl usi vel y t o di st r i ct cour t s pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 1338( a) ) ;
Montage Grp., Ltd. v. Athle-Tech Computer Sys., 889 So. 2d 180,
190 ( Fl a. 2d DCA 2004) ( f i ndi ng t hat cl ai ms t hat may be enf or ced
onl y under t he Copyr i ght Act may not be asser t ed i n st at e
cour t ) . Pl ai nt i f f expr essl y sued t he Def endant I SPs i n t he Bi l l
of Di scover y " f or t he sol e pur pose . . . t o pur sue cl ai ms of
copyr i ght i nf r i ngement agai nst J ohn Does. " ( Compl . SI 50. ) The
Bi l l of Di scover y " ar i ses under " f eder al copyr i ght l aw, and i s
subj ect t o t he j ur i sdi ct i onal r equi r ement s of 1338( a) , because
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 4 of 15
t he f eder al copyr i ght l aw cr eat ed t he cause of act i on, whi ch
al l owed Pl ai nt i f f t o br i ng t he Bi l l of Di scover y i n t he f i r st
pl ace. Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U. S. 369, 377
( 2004) ( hol di ng t hat a sui t " ar i ses under t he l aw t hat cr eat es
t he cause of act i on" ) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Pl ai nt i f f ' s whol e
ar gument f or gr ant i ng i t s Bi l l of Di scover y was based on t he
J ohn Does al l eged copyr i ght i nf r i ngement . ( Compl . I SI 13- 52. )
As a r esul t , t he j udgment i n t hi s case i s voi d. McGhee
V. Biggs, 974 So. 2d 524 ( Fl a. 4t h DCA 2008) (A j udgment ent er ed
J
by a cour t whi ch l acks subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on i s voi d and
subj ect t o col l at er al at t ack at any t i me) ; Gonzalez v. Gonzalez,
654 So. 2d 257 ( Fl a. 3d DCA 1995) ; Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So.
2d 176, 179 ( Fl a. 2d DCA 2006) . I f i t i s det er mi ned i n
pr oceedi ng f or r el i ef f r om j udgment t hat t he j udgment ent er ed
i s voi d, t he t r i al cour t has no di scr et i on, but i s obligated t o
vacat e t he j udgment . Norton v. Rodriguez Espaillat Y Asociados,
926 So. 2d 436 ( Fl a. 3d DCA 2006) . Ther ef or e, t he j udgment must
be vacat ed.
B. Plaintiff has purposely failed to include as
parties the very Defendants it has accused of
infringing its copyright
As i s evi dent on t he f ace of t he compl ai nt . Pl ai nt i f f has
al r eady ( al bei t i mpr oper l y) assumed t he J ohn Does' gui l t . E.g.
Compl . f 15 ( "each of t he J ohn Does . . . i nst al l ed a Bi t Tor r ent
^Cl i ent ' ont o hi s or her comput er " ) . Pl ai nt i f f i s what i s known
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 5 of 15
i n casual par l ance as a " copyr i ght t r ol l . Pl ai nt i f f i s seeki ng
t hese J ohn Does' i nf or mat i on yet has not i ncl uded t he J ohn Does
as Def endant s. The r eason, whi ch i s wel l known i n copyr i ght
ci r cl es, i s t hat i f Pl ai nt i f f had i ncl uded al l 100 or so J ohn
Does as Def endant s, t he sui t woul d be i nst ant l y di smi ssed ( among
ot her t hi ngs) f or i mpr oper j oi nder . See cases ci t ed at infra,
not e 3.
Mor eover , t hese l awsui t s ar e ver y l ucr at i ve f or t he
copyr i ght t r ol l s. I t i s wel l known t hat , once a copyr i ght t r ol l
obt ai ns t he names and cont act i nf or mat i on of t he J ohn Does, i t
wi l l pr essur e each i n an at t empt t o obt ai n hi gh set t l ement f ees.
See, e. g. , Malihu Media, LLC v. Doe, 923 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1345-
46 ( M. D. Fl a. 2013) (a number of cour t s have expr essed concer n
t hat pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s t ype of l i t i gat i on have no i nt er est i n
act ual l y pur sui ng t hei r l egal cl ai ms, but i nst ead ar e usi ng t he
cour t syst em t o obt ai n t he i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on and coer ce
set t l ement f r om put at i ve def endant s i n l i eu of bei ng named i n a
l awsui t whi ch al l eges t he i l l egal downl oadi ng of a por nogr aphi c
f i l m) ( ci t i ng Malihu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-28, No. 8: 12- cv-
1667- T- 27MAP, Or der ( Doc. No. 22) , at 13 n. 13 ( ci t i ng cases) ;
Next Phase Distribution, Inc., 284 F. R. D. at 170 ( "The Cour t
^ E. g. , El ect r oni c Fr ont i er Foundat i on: Copyr i ght Tr ol l s,
ht t ps: / / www. ef f . or q/ i ssues/ copyr i ght - t r ol l s; Wi ki pedi a: Copyr i ght Tr ol l ,
ht t p: / / en. wi ki pedi a. or g/ wi ki / Copyr i ght t r ol l ; J oe Mul l i n, "Copyright Troll"
Prenda Law Completely Bombs at Appeals Court, Ar sTechni ca ( Apr . 8, 2014)
ht t p: / / ar st echni ca. com/ t ech- pol i cy/ 2014/ 04/ copyr i ght - t r ol l - pr enda- l aw-
compl etel y- boI nbs- at- appeal s- court/
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 6 of 15
wi l l not f aci l i t at e such coer ci ve set t l ement s by cast i ng such an
unneces s ar i l y wi de net " ) ) .
Bi t Tor r ent copyr i ght i nf r i ngement sui t s agai nst J ohn Does
appear ed i n t he f eder al cour t s a f ew year s ago, wi t h cases bei ng
f i l ed agai nst l ar ge gr oups - hundr eds, or somet i mes t housands -
of J ohn Does. As J udge Har ol d Baer so el oquent l y descr i bed,
" t he copyr i ght l ocust s have descended on t he f eder al cour t s,
exact i ng l ow- cost set t l ement s f r om embar r assed J ohn Does and
t hen movi ng on t o t he next Di st r i ct . " Media Products, Inc. DBA
Devil's Film v. Does 1-26, 2012 WL 3866492, 1: 12- cv- 03719- HB
( Sept . 24, 2012) . I n ear l y 2012, t hey hj . t Fl or i da.
I n December of 2012, j udges i n t he Mi ddl e Di st r i ct of
Fl or i da began sever i ng t hese " copyr i ght t r ol l " cases. I t
st ar t ed wi t h J udge J ames D. Whi t t emor e ( Tampa) i n Malibu Media,
LLC V. Does 1-28, 8: 12- cv- 01667- J DW- MAP [ Doc. 22] ( Dec. 6,
2012) . The f ol l owi ng week. J udge Ti mot hy J . Cor r i gan
( J acksonvi l l e) ent er ed an or der st ayi ng t hr ee copyr i ght t r ol l
cases and r equi r i ng t he pl ai nt i f f s t o f i l e a br i ef as t o why
Def endant s shoul d not be sever ed. West Coast Prod., Inc. v. Does
1-675, 3: 12-CV- 964- J - 32TEM [ Doc. 42] ( Dec. 13, 2012) , and
Magi st r at e J udge Davi d A. Baker ( Or l ando) ent er ed a r epor t and
r ecommendat i on f i ndi ng t hat t he 1536 cumul at i ve Def endant s i n 25
cases f i l ed by Bai t Pr oduct i ons wer e " i mpr oper l y or i mpr udent l y
j oi ned. " Bait Prod. Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-73, 6: 12- cv- 1637- Or l -
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 7 of 15
31DAB [ Doc. 12 at 2] ( Dec. 14, 2012) . Wi t hi n mont hs, copyr i ght
t r ol l cases agai nst gr oups of i mpr oper l y j oi ned J ohn Does
t oppl ed over l i ke domi nos wi t hi n t he f eder al cour t s i n Fl or i da. ^
These cases became so ubi qui t ous wi t hi n r ecent year s t hat not
one f eder al j uoge i s unawar e of t hem.
As a r esul t of t he 2012 bl i zzar d of copyr i ght t r ol l cases
t hat pl agued t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t s wi t hi n Fl or i da, i t i s a
near cer t ai nt y t hat , i f Pl ai nt i f f had f i l ed hi s case agai nst t he
J ohn Does as Def endant s, i t woul d have been i mmedi at el y sever ed.
^ E.g., Dead Season, LLC v. Does 1-13, 8: 12- CV- 2436- T- 33EAJ , 2013 WL 424131
( M. D. Fl a. Feb. 4? 2013) ( sever ed sua sponte) ; Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 923
F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1346 ( M. D. Fl a. Feb. 13, 2013) ( sever i ng case) . Ot her
Cour t s t hr oughout t he count r y had si mi l ar r ul i ng. The f ol l owi ng ar e a f ew
t hat sever ed si mi l ar cases: E.g., Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-120, Case
No. 12- 20920, DE- 26 ( S. D. Fl a. J ul y 24, 2012) ; West Coast Productions, Inc.
V. Swarm Sharing Hash Files, 6: 12- cv- 1713, 2012 WL 3560809 ( W. D. La. Aug. 16,
2012) ; Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-23, 2012 WL 1999640, *4 ( E. D. Va. May
30, 2012) ( f i ndi ng t hat , i n a ^i l e shar i ng case, "a pl ai nt i f f must al l ege
f act s t hat per mi t t he cour t at l east t o i nf er some act ual , concer t ed exchange
of dat a bet ween t hose def endant s" ) ; Digital Sins, Inc. v. Does 1-245, 2012 WL
1744838 ( S. D. N. Y. May 15, 2012) ( "The bar e f act t hat Doe cl i cked on a command
t o par t i ci pat e i n t he Bi t Tor r ent Pr ot ocol does not mean t hat t hey [ si c] wer e
par t of t he downl oadi ng by unknown hundr eds or t housands of i ndi vi dual s
acr oss t he count r y or acr oss t he wor l d" ) ; Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-23,
2012 WL 1144198 ( D. Md. Apr i l 4, 2012) ( "t he Doe def endant s' separ at e and
di st i nct act i ons di d not const i t ut e ' t he same t r ansact i on, occur r ence or
ser i es of t r ansact i ons or occur r ences' " ) ; Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does
1-23, 2012 WL 1019034 ( E. D. Mi ch. Mar . 26, 2012) ( "si mpl y al l egi ng t he use of
Bi t Tor r ent t echnol ogy . . . does not compor t wi t h t he r equi r ement s under Rul e
20( a) f or per mi ssi ve j oi nder " ) ; Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. BitTorrent
Swarm, 277 F. R. D. 672, 675 ( S. D. Fl a. 2011) ( f i ndi ng mass " J ohn Doe" j oi nder
i nappr opr i at e) ; Raw Films, Inc. v. Does 1-32, 1: l l - CV- 2939- TWT, 2011 WL
6840590 ( N. D. Ga. 2011) ( " Downl oadi ng a wor k as par t of a swar m does not
const i t ut e ' act i ng i n concer t ' wi t n one anot her , par t i cul ar l y when t he
t r ansact i ons happen over a l ong per i od. " ) ; SBO Pictures v. Does 1-3036, 2011
WL 6002620 at *3 ^N. D. Cal . Nov. 30, 2011) ; Pacific Century Int'1 Ltd. v.
Does 1-101, No. C- 11- 02533, 2011 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 124518 ( N. D. Cal . 2011)
( "That Bi t Tor r ent user s have downl oaded t he same copyr i ght ed wor k does not
. . . evi dence t hat t hey have act ed t oget her t o obt ai n i t . " ) ; Lightspeed v.
Does 1-1000, No. 10 C 5604, 2011 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 35392 ( N. D. 111. Mar . 31,
2011) .
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 8 of 15
C. By not including the John Does as Defendants,
Plaintiff essentially obtained a judgment against the
allegedly guilty parties without notice
Fur t her mor e, by not i ncl udi ng t he J ohn Does as Def endant s,
Pl ai nt i f f essent i al l y obt ai ned a j udgment agai nst about 100 J ohn
Does wi t hout not i ce. Thi s due- pr ocess vi ol at i on r ender s t he
j udgment voi d. Tannenbaum v. Shea, 133 So. 3d 1056, 1061 ( Fl a.
4t h DCA 2014) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( "[ a] j udgment i s voi d i f , i n
t he pr oceedi ngs l eadi ng up t o t he j udgment , t her e i s Ma]
vi ol at i on of t he due pr ocess guar ant ee of not i ce and an
oppor t uni t y t o be hear d. ' " ) A j udgment ent er ed wi t hout not i ce
t o a par t y i s voi d, and r el i ef f r om a voi d j udgment may be
gr ant ed at any t i me. Taylor v. Taylor, 67 So. 3d 359 ( Fl a. 4t h
DCA 2011) , rehearing denied. Ther ef or e, t he j udgment shoul d be
vacat ed.
D. Plaintiff cannot determine, from an IP address alone,
whether a cause of action exists.
Fur t her mor e, Pl ai nt i f f ' s compl ai nt i t sel f , on i t s f ace, i s
def ect i ve, as i s Pl ai nt i f f ' s met hodol ogy of obt ai ni ng t he
al l eged copyr i ght i nf r i nger s. Fai l ur e t o st at e a cause of
act i on i s a f at al pl eadi ng def i ci ency not cur abl e by a j udgment .
Rhodes v. 0. Turner & Co., LLC, 111 So. 3d 872, 875 ( Fl a. 4t h
DCA 2013) ; citing Becerra v. Equity Imports, Inc., 551 So. 2d
486, 488 ( Fl a. 3d DCA 1989) . The cause of act i on f or copyr i ght
i nf r i ngement , under l yi ng t he r i ght t o have t he r el i ef pr ayed f or
i n t he Bi l l of Di scover y, was i nsuf f i ci ent on i t s f ace.
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 9 of 15
Pl ai nt i f f i ncor r ect l y st at es i n i t s compl ai nt t hat " each of t he
J ohn Does i dent i f i ed by t hei r r espect i ve I P addr esses . . .
i nst al l ed a Bi t Tor r ent " Cl i ent " ont o hi s or her comput er . "
( Compl . f 15. ) However , as r ecent or der s have expr essed, an I P
addr ess i s not enough t o i dent i f y an i nf r i ngi ng i ndi vi dual . On
Mar ch 20, 2014, i n anot her case f i l ed by copyr i ght t r ol l Mal i bu
Medi a, t he Honor abl e Ur sul a Ungar o of t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of
Fl or i da ent er ed an or der di smi ssi ng t he case. Malibu Media, LLC
V. John Doe, Case No. 1: 14- cv- 20213- UU [ Doc. 10] ( Copy at
Exhibit "1") . I n t hat case. J udge Ungar o had, sua sponte,
i ssued a show- cause order' ' r equi r i ng Mal i bu Medi a, a por nogr apher
copyr i ght t r ol l , t o show good cause why t he Cour t shoul d
r easonabl y r el y on t he use of geol ocat i on or ot her t echnol ogi es
t o est abl i sh t he def endant ' s i dent i t y. Mal i bu Medi a r esponded,
and, af t er consi der i ng sai d r esponse. J udge Ungar o ent er ed an
or der di smi ssi ng t he case, expl ai ni ng:
Pl ai nt i f f has not shown how t hi s [ Mr .
Fi eser ' s] geol ocat i on sof t war e can
est abl i sh t he i dent i t y of t he Def endant .
Ther e i s not hi ng t hat l i nks t he I P addr ess
l ocat' ^i on t o t he i dent i t y of t he per son
act ua] . l y downl oadi ng and vi ewi ng
Pl ai nt i f f ' s vi deos, and est abl i shi ng
whet her t hat per son l i ves i n t hi s
di st r i ct . . . . Even i f t hi s I P addr ess i s
l ocat ed wi t hi n a r esi dence, t he
geol ocat i on sof t war e cannot i dent i f y who
4
Doc. 7 i n 1: 14- CV- 20213- UU ( Mar ch 5, 2014) .
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 10 of 15
has access t o t hat r esi dence' s comput er
and who woul d act ual l y be usi ng i t t o
i nf r i nge Pl ai nt i f f ' s copyr i ght .
Exh. " 1. " J udge Ungar o al so f i l ed show- cause or der s i n at l east
'I
t wo ot her Mal i bu Medi a cases, Case Nos. 0: 14- cv- 60681- UU [ Doc.
5] and 0: 14- cv- 60682- UU [ Doc. 5] , af t er whi ch Mal i bu Medi a f i l ed
not i ces of vol unt ar y di smi ssal . Bot h cases wer e cl osed on Mar ch
27, 2014. Then, on Apr i l 4, 2014, i n yet anot her copyr i ght
t r ol l case. J udge Feder i co A. Mor eno ent er ed anot her or der t o
show cause, t her ei n ci t i ng t o and f ol l owi ng J udge Ungar o' s
or der , and r equi r i ng pl ai nt i f f , Mal i bu Medi a, t o show cause why
t he cour t shoul d r el y on geol ocat i on ser vi ces t o est abl i sh t he
Def endant ' s i dent i t y and l ocat i on. Malibu Media v. Doe, Case No.
14- 20216- FAM ( S. D. Fl a. 2014) .
J udges Ungar o and Mor eno ar e not al one i n f i ndi ng t hat
cases f i l ed agai nst I P subscr i ber s ar e not suf f i ci ent t o
i dent i f y an i ndi vi dual i nf r i nger . I n J anuar y, a di st r i ct j udge
i n Seat t l e ent er ed an or der of di smi ssal because " si mpl y
i dent i f yi ng t he account hol der associ at ed wi t h an I P addr ess
t el l s us ver y l i t t l e about who act ual l y downl oaded Elf-Man usi ng
t hat I P addr ess. " Elf-Man, LLC v. Cariveau, 2014 WL 202096, No.
C13- 0507RSL ( J an. 17, 2014) . One r eason i s t hat , wi t h each
Def endant i dent i f i ed onl y by an I P addr ess, " t he assumpt i on t hat
t he per son who, pays f or I nt er net access at a gi ven l ocat i on i s
t he same i ndi vi dual who al l egedl y downl oaded a si ngl e sexual l y
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 11 of 15
expl i ci t f i l m i s t enuous. " In Re: BitTorrent Adult Film
Copyright Infringement Cases, No. l l - cv- 03995, 2012 WL 1570765,
2012 U. S. . Di st . LEXI S 61447 ( E. D. N. Y. May 1, 2012) . Due t o t he
i ncr easi ng popul ar i t y of wi r el ess r out er s, i dent i f yi ng a
comput er user by an I P addr ess i s unl i kel y, as di f f er ent f ami l y
member s, vi si t or s, or even nei ghbor s coul d have per f or med t he
al l eged downl oads. I d. One cour t obser ved t hat as many as "30%
of t he names t ur ned over by I SPs ar e not t hose of i ndi vi dual s
who act ual l y downl oaded or shar ed copyr i ght ed mat er i al . " Digital
Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176, 2012 WL 263491 *3 ( S. D. N. Y. J an. 30,
2012) .
" [ D] ue t o t he i mpr eci se manner i n whi ch t he Pl ai nt i f f
i dent i f i es al l eged i nf r i nger s, namel y by I P addr esses,
def endant s can asser t an unquant i f i abl e number of di f f er ent
f act ual scenar i os t o est abl i sh t hat t hey di d not downl oad t he
copyr i ght ed wor k. " Bubble Gum Productions, LLC v. Does 1-80,
2012 Copr . L. Dec. P 30292, 2012 WL 2953309 *4 ( S. D. Fl a. 2012)
( ci t i ng In re Bittorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement
Cases, 2012 WL 1570765 at *5) . " Because i t i s common t oday f or
peopl e t o use r out er s t o shar e one I nt er net connect i on bet ween
mul t i pl e comput er s, t he subscr i ber associ at ed wi t h t he I P
addr ess may not necessar i l y be t he al l eged i nf r i nger and i nst ead
^coul d be t he subscr i ber , a member of hi s or her f ami l y, an
empl oyee, i nvi t ee, nei ghbor or i nt er l oper . ' " I d. Ther ef or e, " t he
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 12 of 15
assumpt i on t hat t he per son who pays f or I nt er net access at a
gi ven l ocat i on i s t he same i ndi vi dual who al l egedl y downl oaded a
si ngl e sexual l y expl i ci t f i l m i s t enuous, and one t hat has gr own
mor e so over t i me. " I d. at *3. Because Pl ai nt i f f f ai l ed t o
demonst r at e a cause of act i on f or copyr i ght i nf r i ngement on t he
f ace of t he compl ai nt , such compl ai nt f or bi l l of di scover y i s
voi d.
Ill. Conclusion
A j udgment ent er ed by a cour t , whi ch l acks subj ect mat t er
j ur i sdi ct i on, i s voi d and subj ect t o col l at er al at t ack under
r ul e 1. 540 at any t i me. Addi t i onal l y, a j udgment ent er ed
pur suant t o a compl ai nt , whi ch f ai l s t o st at e a cause of act i on,
i s al so voi d. Fur t her mor e, t r i al j udges have br oad di scr et i on
under Rul e 1. 280( c) t o i ssue pr ot ect i ve or der s. See Rasmussen v.
S. Florida Blood Service, Inc., 500 So. 2d 533 ( Fl a. 1987) ; SCI
Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Light, 811 So. 2d 796 ( Fl a.
4t h DCA 2002) .
Pl ai nt i f f i mpr oper l y used t he Bi l l of Di scover y t o obt ai n
t he i dent i t i es of each subscr i ber t o each I P addr ess. Fi r st , i t
was i mpr oper as i t was used t o obt ai n i nf or mat i on, pr i or t o t he
br i ngi ng of an act i on at l aw, f r om t hi r d- par t y wi t nesses, t he
I SPs. Mor eover , cl a
i ms t hat a r i se under t he Copyr i ght Act may
not be r ai sed i n st at e cour t as subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on i n
t hi s ar ea i s gr ant ed excl usi vel y t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t s. Due t o
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 13 of 15
t he st at e cour t ' s l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on t o gr ant
t he Pl ai nt i f f ' s Bi l l of Di scover y, her ei n, such or der i s voi d.
Mor eover , Pl ai nt i f f pur posel y f ai l ed t o i ncl ude t he J ohn Does as
Def endant s i n t he sui t f or bi l l of di scover y because di st r i ct
cour t j ur i spr udence has al r eady hel d t hat such j oi nder i s
i mpr oper . As a r esul t , Pl ai nt i f f vi ol at ed J ohn Doe' s due
pr ocess r i ght s by obt ai ni ng a j udgment r el at i ng t o J ohn Doe, and
wi t h t he i nt ent i on of f i l i ng a l at er act i on agai nst J ohn Doe,
wi t hout pr oper not i ce and an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d, t hus,
r ender i ng t he j udgment voi d. Last l y, Pl ai nt i f f ' s compl ai nt , on
i t s f ace, i s def ect i ve, because an I P addr ess al one i s not
suf f i ci ent t o i dent i f y an i ndi vi dual i nf r i nger . Such f ai l ur e t o
st at e a cause of act i on, under l yi ng t he pr ayer f or r el i ef ,
r ender s t he or der and j udgment gr ant i ng t he Bi l l of Di scover y
voi d.
WHEREFORE, Movant , t he I nt er net subscr i ber i dent i f i ed by
I . P. addr ess No. 76. 111. 192. 216 ( "J ohn Doe" ) , r equest s t hat t hi s
Honor abl e Cour t VACATE t he j udgment and ent er a pr ot ect i ve or der
pr ohi bi t i ng t he r el ease of hi s/ her / i t s i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on.
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 14 of 15
ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I her eby cer t i f y t hat on June 25, 2014, t he dat e of f i l i ng
t he f or gi ng vi a t he Fl or i da E- Fi l i ng Por t al , a t r ue and cor r ect
copy of t he f or egoi ng was ser ved t o t he f ol l owi ng at t or neys vi a
E- Ser vi ce:
Al ec Russel l , Esq. at Al ec. r ussel l @gr ay- r obi nson. com and
Toni mar i e. dal essandr o@gr ay- r obi nson. com;
Paul J . Schwi ep, Esq. at Pschwi ep@cof f eybur l i ngt on. com,
Yvb@cof f eybur l i ngt on. com, and
Ser vi ce@COf f eybur l i ngt on. com;
J ohn D. Sei ver , Esq. at J ohnSei ver Qdwt . com; and
Thomas A. Sadaka, Esq. at Tom@nej amel aw. com,
Mi chel l e@nej amel aw. com, and Shannon@nej amel aw. com.
Attorneys for John Doe subscriber
assigned to IP Address
76.111.192.216:
Cynthia Conlin, P.A.
1643 Hi l l cr est St r eet
Or l ando, FL 32803
Tel . 407- 965- 5519/ Fax 407- 545- 4397
www. Conl i nPA. com
/ s/ Cynt hi a Conl i n, Esq.
[ X] CYNTHI A CONLI N, ESQ.
Fl or i da Bar No. 47012
Cynt hi a@cynt hi aconl i n. com
[ ] J ENNI FER DAWN REED, Esq.
Fl or i da Bar No. 104986
J enni f er @cynt hi aconl i n. com
Secondar y Emai l f or Ser vi ce:
J ef f Qcynt hi aconl i n. com
Canal Street Films Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al., 05-2013-CA-40202 Motion to Vacate J udgment, Page 15 of 15
EXHIBIT
Case l:14-cv-20213-UU Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2014 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: l:14-cv-20213-UU
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte.
THE COURT has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise fully
advised on the premises. On March 5, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, D.E. 7,
ordering Plaintiff to show good cause why the Court may reasonably rely on Plaintiffs usage of
geolocation or other technologies to (1) establish the identity of the Defendant and (2) that the
Defendant may be found within this district; and to show good cause why this case should not be
dismissed for improper venue; and show good cause as to why this case should not be dismissed
for improper venue. On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed its response to the Court's Order. D.E. 9.
Plaintiff has shown that the geolocation software can provide a location for an infringing IP
address; however. Plaintiff has not shown how this geolocation software can establish the
identity of the Defendant. There is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the
person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiffs videos, and establishing whether that person
lives in this district. For example, when arguing that this IP address is not a coffee shop or open
Wi-Fi network, Plaintiff points to the timing of the alleged infringement and the fact that the
internet service provider typically provides internet to residences. D.E. 9 at 10. Plaintiff then
Case l:14-cv-20213-UU Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2014 Page 2 of 2
argues that a coffee shop owner could possibly identify the Defendant. Id. Even if this IP
address is located within a residence, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to
that residence's computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiffs copyright.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not established good cause for the Court to reasonably rely on
Plaintiffs usage of geolocation to establish the identity of the Defendant. The Court also finds
that Plaintiff has not established good cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for
improper venue. Accordingly it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Complaint, D.E. 1, is DISMISSED. It is
further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for Administrative Purposes, this case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of March, 2014.
URSULA UNGARO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
copies provided: counsel of record