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