Shueisha Inc. v. DMCA Subpoena to Cloudflare, Inc. — Entry #21: Discovery Order re: 20 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Shueisha Inc
Case: Shueisha Inc. v. DMCA Subpoena to Cloudflare, Inc. cand · 4:25-mc-80147
filed June 10, 2025
What this document is
Docket entry #21 · filed February 02, 2026
Discovery Order re: 20 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Shueisha Inc. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 2/2/2026. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2026)
Who is involved
- DMCA Subpoena to Cloudflare, Inc.
- John Doe
- Shueisha Inc.
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Nebius: its former name “Yandex N.V.” appears in a filing in this case.
…1090 (9th Cir. 1994) and Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V., 962 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1153 (N.D. Cal. 2013);…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 09, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
2 page(s), 6,434 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 21 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 SHUEISHA INC., Case No. 25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH)
8 Plaintiff,
DISCOVERY ORDER
9 v.
Re: Dkt. No. 20
10 DMCA SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE,
INC.,
11
Defendant.
12
United States District Court
13 In ECF No. 14, Judge Gonzalez Rogers denied Doe’s motion to quash and ordered the
14 parties “to, within thirty (30) days of this Order, meet and confer and submit a proposed protective
15 order to the Court that prohibits the disclosure and use of John Doe’s identity for any purpose
Northern District of California
16 unrelated to the purpose of the subpoena.” ECF No. 14 at 4. The parties filed a joint discovery
17 letter brief with competing proposed orders. ECF No. 16. The Court found neither proposed
18 order acceptable and instead issued an order to provide the parties further guidance. ECF No. 19.
19 The parties have now filed a further joint discovery letter brief with competing proposed orders.
20 The Court rules as follows.
21 First, as the Court previously stated, the purpose of the subpoena is defined by the
22 attestation Shueisha had to make to obtain it: “the purpose for which the subpoena is sought is to
23 obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and that such information will only be used for the
24 purpose of protecting rights under this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(h)(3). “[T]his title” means title 17
25 of the United States Code, so only U.S.-based copyright claims are within the purpose of the
26 subpoena. Foreign litigation is outside of that scope. Thus, Shuesisha’s proposal that it could use
27 protected information to file a copyright action in a foreign court is rejected.
28 Second, filing a U.S.-based copyright claim does not cause the protections of the protective
Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 21 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2
1 order to evaporate. They remain in place; otherwise, Shueisha’s attestation was false. It is not
2 acceptable for Shueisha to make an attestation that it will use the requested information “only” for
3 one purpose and then later change its mind.
4 Third, Doe’s 19-page proposed protective order is excessive. For example, his section
5 1.2(a) would bar Shueisha from including any non-copyright causes of action in a complaint
6 against him. However, it is common for U.S. copyright plaintiffs to include related causes of
7 action, and the ability to assert copyright and non-copyright claims in a single action is protective
8 of rights under title 17. His section 1.2(b) micromanages what Shueisha’s experts can do with
9 protected information. His proposed section 2.5 heavily micromanages Shueisha’s internal
10 operations. His section 3.1 would have this Court effectively superintending trial presentation and
11 the use of evidence in another court’s case.
12 Fourth, Shueisha’s proposed order states that “protected information” may be filed
United States District Court
13 publicly in a copyright infringement action. Certainly, Shueisha may sue Doe by name in a U.S.-
14 based copyright claim. However, protected information also includes his email address, phone
15 number, financial information, and so on. Those items are generally not suitable for a public
Northern District of California
16 filing.
17 Accordingly, the Court modifies Shueisha’s proposed order and enters that as the
18 protective order in this case.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21 Dated: February 2, 2026
22
THOMAS S. HIXSON
23 United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
2