Case 2:17-cv-00988-TSZ Document 27 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8

C17-988 TSZ

v.
9

SEAN O’LEARY JR., et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13

JONATHAN DUTCZAK, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

C17-990 TSZ

v.

VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,

16
17

C17-991 TSZ

v.
MARTIN RAWLS, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20
21

VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,
C17-1074 TSZ

v.
INA SICOTORSCHI, et al.,
Defendants.

22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

 Case 2:17-cv-00988-TSZ Document 27 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 5

1

VENICE PI, LLC,

2
3

Plaintiff,
C17-1075 TSZ

v.
GREGORY SCOTT, et al.,

4
5

Defendants.
VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,

6

C17-1076 TSZ

v.
7

YELENA TKACHENKO, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9

VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,

10

C17-1160 TSZ

v.
11

CELINA POTTER, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,

14
15

TONJA LAIBLE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

C17-1163 TSZ

v.

VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,

18
19

C17-1164 TSZ

v.
VICTOR TADURAN, et al.,
Defendants.

20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2

 Case 2:17-cv-00988-TSZ Document 27 Filed 11/03/17 Page 3 of 5

1

VENICE PI, LLC,

2
3

Plaintiff,
C17-1211 TSZ

v.
JESSE COOPER, et al.,

4
5

Defendants.
VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,

6

C17-1219 TSZ

v.
7

JASMINE PATERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9

VENICE PI, LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11

14

MINUTE ORDER

DAVID MEINERT, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

C17-1403 TSZ

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

(1)
The deadlines for a Rule 26(f) conference, exchange of initial disclosures,
15 and submission of a Joint Status Report are STRICKEN. Plaintiff’s motions for
extension of these initial scheduling deadlines, docket no. 17 in C17-988, docket no. 27
16 in C17-990, docket no. 22 in C17-991, docket no. 21 in C17-1074, docket no. 15 in C171075, and docket no. 17 in C17-1076, are STRICKEN as moot.
17
(2)
Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time to serve, docket no. 15 in
18 C17-1160, docket no. 20 in C17-1163, docket no. 14 in C17-1164, docket no. 18 in
C17-1211, and docket no. 16 in C17-1219, are GRANTED as follows. The deadlines for
19 plaintiff to effect service are EXTENDED as follows:
20

Case No.

Current Deadline

New Deadline

21

C17-1160
C17-1163
C17-1164

October 29, 2017
October 29, 2017
October 29, 2017

November 20, 2017
November 20, 2017
November 20, 2017

22
23

MINUTE ORDER - 3

 Case 2:17-cv-00988-TSZ Document 27 Filed 11/03/17 Page 4 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

C17-1211
C17-1219

November 8, 2017
November 9, 2017

November 20, 2017
November 20, 2017

No further extension will be granted.1
(3)
In two different cases, Nos. C17-990 TSZ and C17-1075, plaintiff sued the
same, now deceased, defendant, namely Wilbur Miller. Mr. Miller’s widow submitted a
declaration indicating that, for about five years prior to his death at the age of 91,
Mr. Miller suffered from dementia and was both mentally and physically incapable of
operating a computer. See R. Miller Decl. (docket no. 30 in C17-990). The fact that
Mr. Miller’s Internet Protocol (“IP”) address was nevertheless identified as part of two
different BitTorrent “swarms” raises significant doubts about the accuracy of whatever
IP-address tracking method plaintiff is using. Moreover, plaintiff may not, based solely
on IP addresses, launch a fishing expedition aimed at coercing individuals into either
admitting to copyright infringement or pointing a finger at family members, friends,
tenants, or neighbors. Plaintiff must demonstrate the plausibility of its claims before
discovery will be permitted. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Discovery includes discussions between plaintiff’s counsel and
unrepresented defendants concerning the merits of, or the events giving rise to, plaintiff’s
claims, and such conversations are prohibited until after a Rule 26(f) conference occurs.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Because plaintiff’s counsel has admittedly not abided by the
restrictions on discovery, see Pla.’s Resp. (docket no. 76 in C15-1430 TSZ), plaintiff’s
counsel is DIRECTED not to communicate with any unrepresented defendant in
any manner for any purpose until further order of the Court. Within twenty-eight
(28) days of the date of this Minute Order, plaintiff shall file an offer of proof, which may
be captioned in the same manner as this Minute Order and filed in each case. Such offer
of proof shall be supported by the declaration of an expert in the field, setting forth such
expert’s qualifications, and shall address the following issues: (i) whether and, if so, how
an IP address can be either “spoofed” to or faked by a BitTorrent tracker, and what is the
likelihood (quantified if possible) that each defendant’s IP address was a false positive;
(ii) whether and, if so, how plaintiff can prove that the material allegedly tracked to each
defendant’s IP address was a “playable” and actionable segment of the copyrighted work
at issue; and (iii) what evidence, if any, can plaintiff currently present, beyond mere
association with an IP address, that each defendant engaged in the alleged copyright

18
19

Plaintiff’s counsel was previously advised that the Court will not grant extensions of the time to effect
service so that plaintiff’s counsel can distribute threatening letters to defendants in advance of naming
20
them in an operative pleading. See Minute Order (docket no. 20 in C17-1074, docket no. 14 in C17-1075,
docket no. 16 in C17-1076). Plaintiff’s counsel, however, appears to have sent such letters to defendants
21 in the five cases at issue before the Court’s Minute Order was entered in the related matters. The dockets
in the related matters (C17-1074, C17-1075, and C17-1076) reflect that service was generally effected
22 within two weeks after the waiver deadline. Plaintiff’s request for a lengthier extension in C17-1211 and
C17-1219 is therefore denied.
1

23
MINUTE ORDER - 4

 Case 2:17-cv-00988-TSZ Document 27 Filed 11/03/17 Page 5 of 5

1 infringement. In the absence of a timely filed offer of proof, plaintiff’s claims will be
dismissed with prejudice and without costs, and these cases will be closed.
2
(4)
The deadlines for defendants to file responsive pleadings or motions in
3 these cases are STRICKEN. The Court will reset such deadlines, if appropriate, after
considering any offer of proof filed by plaintiff.
4
(5)
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of
5 record and to each defendant not represented by counsel at the address to which summons
was issued. If summons has not yet been issued with respect to particular defendants,
6 plaintiff’s counsel shall provide to the Clerk, within three (3) days of the date of this
Minute Order, a list of addresses for such defendants.
7

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2017.

8

William M. McCool
Clerk

9

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 5