{"cached_at":"2026-11-09T11:46:56.930083+00:00","cl_docket_id":"70499555","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","id":70499555,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/","court_id":"cand","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/2766/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9089/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-06-10T10:34:44.702065-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T16:44:35.681363-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers","referred_to_str":"Thomas S. Hixson","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-06-10","date_terminated":"2025-06-12","date_last_filing":"2026-02-02","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Shueisha Inc. v. DMCA Subpoena to Cloudflare, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc","docket_number":"4:25-mc-80147","docket_number_core":"2580147","docket_number_raw":"4:25-mc-80147","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"4","federal_dn_case_type":"mc","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"YGR","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"450953","cause":"Civil Miscellaneous Case","nature_of_suit":"890 Other Statutory Actions","jury_demand":"None","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-06-10T10:34:44.663170-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16507488/","id":16507488,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10783086/","attorney_id":10783086,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","docket_id":70499555,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10783086/","attorney_id":10783086,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","docket_id":70499555,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10783087/","attorney_id":10783087,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","docket_id":70499555,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","docket_id":70499555,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.293067-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.293078-07:00","name":"John Doe","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16507487/","id":16507487,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10783084/","attorney_id":10783084,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","docket_id":70499555,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10783084/","attorney_id":10783084,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","docket_id":70499555,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10783085/","attorney_id":10783085,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","docket_id":70499555,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","docket_id":70499555,"name":"Petitioner","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.179414-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.179426-07:00","name":"Shueisha Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16507486/","id":16507486,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","docket_id":70499555,"name":"In Re","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.113914-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.113928-07:00","name":"DMCA Subpoena to Cloudflare, Inc.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/452454283/","id":452454283,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/467322416/","id":467322416,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/21/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2026-02-02T15:37:10.692639-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T16:44:35.782325-07:00","sha1":"2a20e4ce9e64b4eda4331f850b0a654d0591e209","page_count":2,"file_size":129299,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.21.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.21.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 21 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3\n\n 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n 6\n\n 7 SHUEISHA INC., Case No. 25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH)\n 8 Plaintiff,\n DISCOVERY ORDER\n 9 v.\n Re: Dkt. No. 20\n 10 DMCA SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE,\n INC.,\n 11\n Defendant.\n 12\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 In ECF No. 14, Judge Gonzalez Rogers denied Doe\u2019s motion to quash and ordered the\n\n 14 parties \u201cto, within thirty (30) days of this Order, meet and confer and submit a proposed protective\n\n 15 order to the Court that prohibits the disclosure and use of John Doe\u2019s identity for any purpose\n\n 16 unrelated to the purpose of the subpoena.\u201d ECF No. 14 at 4. The parties filed a joint discovery\n\n 17 letter brief with competing proposed orders. ECF No. 16. The Court found neither proposed\n\n 18 order acceptable and instead issued an order to provide the parties further guidance. ECF No. 19.\n\n 19 The parties have now filed a further joint discovery letter brief with competing proposed orders.\n\n 20 The Court rules as follows.\n\n 21 First, as the Court previously stated, the purpose of the subpoena is defined by the\n\n 22 attestation Shueisha had to make to obtain it: \u201cthe purpose for which the subpoena is sought is to\n\n 23 obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and that such information will only be used for the\n\n 24 purpose of protecting rights under this title.\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(h)(3). \u201c[T]his title\u201d means title 17\n\n 25 of the United States Code, so only U.S.-based copyright claims are within the purpose of the\n\n 26 subpoena. Foreign litigation is outside of that scope. Thus, Shuesisha\u2019s proposal that it could use\n\n 27 protected information to file a copyright action in a foreign court is rejected.\n\n 28 Second, filing a U.S.-based copyright claim does not cause the protections of the protective\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 21 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 1 order to evaporate. They remain in place; otherwise, Shueisha\u2019s attestation was false. It is not\n\n 2 acceptable for Shueisha to make an attestation that it will use the requested information \u201conly\u201d for\n\n 3 one purpose and then later change its mind.\n\n 4 Third, Doe\u2019s 19-page proposed protective order is excessive. For example, his section\n\n 5 1.2(a) would bar Shueisha from including any non-copyright causes of action in a complaint\n\n 6 against him. However, it is common for U.S. copyright plaintiffs to include related causes of\n\n 7 action, and the ability to assert copyright and non-copyright claims in a single action is protective\n\n 8 of rights under title 17. His section 1.2(b) micromanages what Shueisha\u2019s experts can do with\n\n 9 protected information. His proposed section 2.5 heavily micromanages Shueisha\u2019s internal\n\n 10 operations. His section 3.1 would have this Court effectively superintending trial presentation and\n\n 11 the use of evidence in another court\u2019s case.\n\n 12 Fourth, Shueisha\u2019s proposed order states that \u201cprotected information\u201d may be filed\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 publicly in a copyright infringement action. Certainly, Shueisha may sue Doe by name in a U.S.-\n\n 14 based copyright claim. However, protected information also includes his email address, phone\n\n 15 number, financial information, and so on. Those items are generally not suitable for a public\n\n 16 filing.\n\n 17 Accordingly, the Court modifies Shueisha\u2019s proposed order and enters that as the\n\n 18 protective order in this case.\n\n 19 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n 20\n\n 21 Dated: February 2, 2026\n\n 22\n THOMAS S. HIXSON\n 23 United States Magistrate Judge\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-02-02T18:57:45.619268-08:00","document_number":"21","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026715940","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Discovery Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-02T15:37:10.668563-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T16:44:35.761829-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-02","time_filed":"15:06:59","entry_number":21,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":62,"description":"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)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/452454207/","id":452454207,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/467322340/","id":467322340,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/22/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2026-02-02T15:37:07.160710-08:00","date_modified":"2026-02-08T05:43:25.342438-08:00","sha1":"cb28361345310ce1c60d76d638bfd166b5530dcb","page_count":3,"file_size":1324691,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.22.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.22.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 22 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n GAMMA LAW, P.C.\n 1 Duy Thai (SB 157345)\n 2 Marco Martemucci (SBN 255054)\n One Sansome Street, Suite 1400\n 3 San Francisco, California 94104\n Tel.: 415.901.0510\n 4 Fax: 415.901.0512\n dthai@gammalaw.com\n 5\n mmartemucci@gammalaw.com\n 6 Attorneys for Shueisha Inc.\n 7 KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP\n 8 Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. 222187)\n Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107 (Bar No. 343520)\n 9 548 Market St. #85399\n San Francisco, CA 94104\n10 Telephone: (415) 955-1155\n Facsimile: (415) 955-1158\n11\n jeff@kr.law\n12 leah@kr.law\n\n13 Attorneys for John Doe\n\n14\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n15\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n16 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION\n\n17 In re 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h) Subpoena to Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n18 CLOUDFLARE, INC.\n [SHUEISHA\u2019S PROPOSED]\n19\n PROTECTIVE ORDER\n20 RE: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION\n PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO DMCA\n21 SUBPOENA (17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h))\n22 **AS MODIFIED BY COURT\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 22 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 The Court, having considered the parties\u2019 submissions regarding a protective order governing\n\n 2 disclosure of identifying information produced pursuant to a subpoena issued under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n 3 512(h), and good cause appearing, hereby ORDERS:\n\n 4 1. Protected Information\n\n 5 The term \u201cProtected Information\u201d refers to any personally identifying information (\u201cPII\u201d)\n\n 6 relating to John Doe, the Cloudflare, Inc. customer and alleged copyright infringer identified as\n\n 7 being responsible for the URLs listed in the \u00a7 512(h) subpoena issued by Shueisha, Inc. (\u201cShueisha\u201d)\n\n 8 in this matter, including but not limited to name, physical address, email address, telephone number,\n\n 9 financial information, or IP address logs.\n\n10 2. Permitted Uses\n\n11 Protected Information shall be used solely for purposes contemplated under the Copyright\n\n12 Act, including:\n\n13 a) Identifying the alleged infringer to Shueisha and its counsel;\n\n14 b) Evaluating, preparing, or initiating a copyright infringement action in a U.S. court;\n\n15 c) Filing a copyright infringement action in a foreign court;\n\n16 d) Investigating, negotiating, or settling copyright infringement claims prior to, or in lieu of,\n\n17 copyright litigation;\n\n18 e) Effectuating service of process if a lawsuit is filed.\n\n19 Protected Information shall not be used for any other purpose, including pre-litigation public\n Doe's name\n20 disclosure, harassment, commercial use, or publication. Protected Information may be filed publicly\n\n21 without seal in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Shueisha against Doe.\n\n22 3. Access\n\n23 Access to Protected Information shall be limited to:\n\n24 a) Counsel of record for the subpoenaing party;\n\n25 b) Paralegals, staff, or experts working at the direction of counsel;\n\n26 c) The Court or court personnel as necessary;\n\n27 d) Shueisha officers, directors, employees, consultants, agents, and retained experts working\n\n28 on Sheuisha\u2019s copyright enforcement efforts regarding this matter.\n 2\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 22 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 All persons receiving Protected Information must be advised of, and agree to be bound by,\n\n 2 this Protective Order.\n\n 3 4. Non-Disclosure\n\n 4 Shueisha shall not disclose Protected Information to any third party other than those listed in\n\n 5 Section 3 unless:\n\n 6 1. The disclosure is reasonably necessary for any of the purposes identified in Section 2;\n\n 7 2. The Doe has been named as a defendant in a filed complaint \u2013 at which point all\n\n 8 protections under this order cease.\n\n 9 Until and unless a complaint is filed identifying Doe by their name as a party, Protected\n\n10 Information shall remain confidential and not publicly disclosed, except with the Court\u2019s permission.\n\n11 5. Return or Destruction\n\n12 If no action is filed before the expiration of all statutes of limitation on Shueisha\u2019s copyright\n\n13 claims against Doe arising from this matter, counsel for the Shueisha shall destroy or return all\n\n14 Protected Information to the producing entity and certify destruction upon request.\n\n15 6. Modification\n\n16 The Court may modify this Order for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties.\n\n17 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n18\n\n19 February 2, 2026\n DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________\n United States District/Magistrate Judge\n20\n Thomas S. Hixson\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-02-02T18:59:47.425620-08:00","document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026716022","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Protective Order AND ~Util - Set/Clear Flags","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-02T15:37:07.133767-08:00","date_modified":"2026-02-02T15:37:07.140586-08:00","date_filed":"2026-02-02","time_filed":"15:12:40","entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":66,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447313627/","id":447313627,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462062863/","id":462062863,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-12-15T23:56:07.565909-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.406829-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-15T23:56:07.535900-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.377848-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson for Discovery. (shy, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446552917/","id":446552917,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461280228/","id":461280228,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/20/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-08T16:35:40.103680-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.669611-08:00","sha1":"31cc53795d291659fe2a73762308efcf19310633","page_count":6,"file_size":310223,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.20.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.20.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n\nDecember 8, 2025\n\nHon. Thomas S. Hixson, United States Magistrate Judge\n450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom E \u2013 15th Floor\nSan Francisco, CA 94102\n\nVIA ECF\n\nRE: In Re. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h) Subpoena to Cloudflare, Inc. (Shueisha Inc.), Case No. 4:25-\nmc-80147-YGR (TSH) Joint Discovery Letter re: Protective Order\n\nDear Judge Hixson:\n\n The parties in this action jointly submit the 5-page letter brief that follows this cover\nsheet/signature page, along with each party\u2019s accompanying proposed protective order pursuant\nto the Court\u2019s order in D.E. 19.\n\nSincerely,\n KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP GAMMA LAW, P.C.\n\n s/ Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107 s/ Marco Martemucci\n Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107 (SBN 343520) Marco Martemucci (SBN 255054)\n 548 Market St. #85399 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400\n San Francisco, CA 94104 San Francisco, California 94104\n Telephone: (415) 955-1155 Tel.: 415.901.0510\n Facsimile: (415) 955-1158 Fax: 415.901.0512\n leah@kr.law MMartemucci@gammalaw.com\n Attorneys for Non-Party John Doe Attorneys for Shueisha Inc.\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 6\nHon. Thomas S. Hixson\nDecember 8, 2025\nPage 1\nJohn Doe\u2019s Position:\n Doe\u2019s position on the protective order is set forth fully in the Joint Discovery Letter Brief\nfiled at D.E. 16. Doe appreciates the Court\u2019s guidance in D.E. 19. Doe submits a revised protective\norder comporting with the Court\u2019s guidance. Additionally, Doe responds to Shueisha\u2019s position.\nI. There is clear good cause for a protective order.\n Shueisha again argues there is no good cause for a protective order. But this Court already\nrecognized that Shueisha itself has shown the good cause\u2014it intends to use Doe\u2019s identity for\npurposes unrelated to protecting its copyrights in the U.S. [See D.E. 19, 2:11-14; see also D.E. 6-\n1, 5:2-12; 6-2 Exs. E, F.] In a pre-suit identification proceeding under \u00a7512(h), Doe reasonably\nexpects that any compelled disclosure of his identity will be used only within the U.S. copyright\nframework that the statute describes. The risk that Doe\u2019s identity will instead be used in foreign\nproceedings, or shared with other third parties, creates a concrete and irreparable harm that Rule\n26(c) is designed to address. A protective order is necessary to confine the use of this information\nto the specific, narrow purpose for which Congress authorized disclosure.\nII. The statutory oath, relevant authority, and this Court\u2019s prior ruling foreclose foreign use.\n Shueisha\u2019s first core contention is that issuance of a DMCA subpoena and the subsequent\nuse of the subpoenaed information are legally separate. In its view, as long as it acted in \u201cgood faith\u201d\nat the time of issuance, later use of Doe\u2019s identity, including abroad, is unconstrained by \u00a7512(h).\n That is not what the statute says. Section 512(h)(2)(C) requires a sworn declaration that the\ninformation sought \u201cwill only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title,\u201d and\n\u00a7512(h)(3)(A) makes that sworn statement a condition precedent to issuance. This use limitation\nis not a one-time box to be checked and then disregarded; it is part of the statutory bargain for\nobtaining highly sensitive information through a streamlined, ex parte procedure. It functions as\nan ongoing constraint on how the information may be used.\n This Court has already held\u2014twice\u2014that Doe\u2019s identity may not be used for any purpose\nunrelated to the purpose of the subpoena, which is to pursue U.S.-based copyright claims, and that\nforeign litigation is outside of that scope. D.E. 14, 19. That conclusion is correct. 17 U.S.C.\n\u00a7512(h)(2)(C); see Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v. Automattic, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1159\n(N.D. Cal. 2013). \u00a7512(h) is a narrow, pre-suit identification device designed to enable U.S.\ncopyright enforcement, not a general investigative writ for use in any jurisdiction.\n Shueisha suggests that because it did not yet know Doe\u2019s physical location at the time of\nthe subpoena, it should now be free to use the information in foreign proceedings if Doe turns out\nto be outside the United States. But uncertainty about a user\u2019s location is simply the risk of\nchoosing the streamlined \u00a7512(h) process. It is not a license to retroactively expand a Title 17-only\nsubpoena into a general-purpose identification tool for foreign litigation. A rightsholder that needs\ndiscovery in aid of foreign proceedings has a separate mechanism, 28 U.S.C. \u00a71782, for that\npurpose. Doe\u2019s revised proposed protective order \u00a7\u00a71.1-1.2 reflect this settled principle.\nIII. 28 U.S.C. \u00a71782 provides the proper vehicle for foreign proceedings.\n Shueisha argues that if \u00a7512(h) information cannot later be used in foreign proceedings,\nthe Court will force it to \u201cwaste resources\u201d by seeking the same information again via \u00a71782. That\nargument misdescribes both statutes, and cannot be used to violate \u00a7512(h).\n When a party wants U.S. discovery for use in foreign proceedings, Congress has provided\na specific tool: 28 U.S.C. \u00a71782. Courts applying \u00a71782 consider the factors of Intel Corp. v.\nAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 262 (2004), including comity and fairness, before\nauthorizing such discovery. By contrast, \u00a7512(h) was drafted to allow a copyright owner to identify\nan alleged infringer quickly and ex parte for the narrow purpose of pursuing U.S. copyright\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 6\nHon. Thomas S. Hixson\nDecember 8, 2025\nPage 2\nremedies. Treating \u00a7512(h) as a general global unmasking device would collapse the distinct roles\nof these statutes and effectively bypass the safeguards that \u00a71782 and Intel provide.\n When Shueisha has sought discovery in aid of foreign proceedings, it has filed applications\nunder 28 U.S.C. \u00a71782, seeking leave to serve subpoenas on U.S.-based entities for use in foreign\nlitigation. See, e.g., Shueisha Inc. v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 23-MC-80162-SK, 2023 WL 5993052\n(N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2023). But notably, even in these cases, Shueisha has exceeded the permitted\nuse of prior \u00a7512(h) subpoenas, directly in contradiction of that statute\u2019s stated purposes. See In\nre Shueisha Inc., No. 5:24-MC-80263-BLF, 2024 WL 4633645, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2024);\nIn re Shueisha, Inc., No. 21-MC-80255-VKD, 2021 WL 5279816, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021);\nShueisha Inc. v. Paypal Holdings, Inc., No. 22-MC-80273-JSC, 2023 WL 2277102, at *1 (N.D.\nCal. Feb. 27, 2023) (using DMCA subpoenas for later \u00a71782 petitions to aid in foreign discovery).\nIn those prior \u00a7 1782 matters, Shueisha\u2019s applications were decided ex parte, and no Doe or\nanonymous user appeared to oppose them or to raise \u00a7 512(h)(2)(C)\u2019s \u201cprotecting rights under this\ntitle\u201d limitation. As a result, the courts had no occasion to examine that issue in an adversarial\nsetting. But because a DMCA subpoena is so easy to obtain\u2014it\u2019s not even reviewed by the court\nprior to issuance, it can be used to unmask multiple people at once (Shueisha\u2019s takedown notice\nhad 25 separate URLs) without substantive evidence, just an attestation\u2014parties seeking to\nunmask anonymous Does must strictly follow it.\n What Shueisha asks the Court to do here is effectively to read into \u00a7512(h) an implicit\nforeign-use exception that Congress did not enact, and that would duplicate \u00a71782 without its\nsafeguards. The Court should decline to do so.\nIV. Doe\u2019s protective order implements safeguards before Shueisha may unilaterally dispose\nof the order\u2019s protections.\n Shueisha\u2019s proposed protective order essentially provides for self-evaporation once\nShueisha files a lawsuit (Shueisha proposed order \u00a74). But even after a public lawsuit is filed, the\nprotective order must continue to bind Shueisha\u2019s use of the subpoena-derived information to\npurposes under Title 17. If this protection falls away, the order becomes toothless and doesn\u2019t really\nprotect anything. For example, Shueisha may simply file a U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit to\nescape the protections of the order; and then file a lawsuit abroad. This circumvents the Court\u2019s\nruling and statutory authority then \u00a7512(h) may only be used to protect rights under Title 17.\n Doe\u2019s proposed protective order provides continuing protections, namely: 1) use of Doe\u2019s\nidentity may only be in connection with protecting Shueisha\u2019s copyrights under the Copyright Act\n(\u00a71.1); and 2) Doe\u2019s identity may never be used for any other purpose, such as foreign litigation\n(\u00a7\u00a71.2(a), 4). Any other form of protective order would eviscerate Congress\u2019s intent for \u00a7512(h).\nV. Shueisha\u2019s evolving positions suggest a \u201croadmap\u201d for use of DMCA subpoenas beyond\nTitle 17.\n Relatedly, Shueisha\u2019s evolving positions in this case underscore the need for a clear\nprotective order. In its initial proposed protective order, Shueisha simultaneously asserted that no\nprotective order was necessary and, at the same time, sought permission to share Doe Identity\nInformation with unspecified third parties and to use it outside the United States. In its next round\nof drafts and briefing, Shueisha again disputed that there is good cause for any protective order.\nAnd after this Court made clear that DMCA subpoena information could not be used in foreign\nproceedings, Shueisha then argued that any protective order entered here would effectively \u201cfall\naway\u201d once it filed a U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit against Doe. Taken together, these\npositions would preserve, in practice, a path to third-party and foreign uses of Doe Identity\nInformation notwithstanding \u00a7512(h)(2)(C), \u00a7512(h)(3), and this Court\u2019s guidance.\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20 Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 6\nHon. Thomas S. Hixson\nDecember 8, 2025\nPage 3\n Shueisha\u2019s position effectively provides a practical \u201croadmap\u201d that others could follow in\nfuture cases. First, take advantage of the very low threshold for a \u00a7512(h) DMCA subpoena:\nwithout submitting substantive evidence, based only on a formal attestation and a list of URLs, to\nobtain highly sensitive identity information, with no prior judicial review and no participation by\nthe affected user. Second, file a public lawsuit in the U.S. and, even if that lawsuit is never seriously\npursued or ultimately fails, use the litigation to place that information into the public, even though\nit was originally produced subject to \u00a7512(h)(2)(C)\u2019s commitment that it \u201cwill only be used for the\npurpose of protecting rights under\u201d Title 17 and pursuant to a Rule 26(c) protective order. Third,\nthen contend that since such information has been included in public pleadings in a U.S. copyright\ninfringement lawsuit, the DMCA\u2019s use limitation and this Court\u2019s protective order no longer\nmeaningfully govern its subsequent use, including in other proceedings such as foreign litigation.\n The Court should decline to do so. Shueisha\u2019s proposed framework underscores the need\nfor the Court to strictly follow \u00a7512(h)\u2019s Title 17 limitations.\nVI. Shueisha\u2019s position is contrary to its attestation and would cause Doe irreparable harm.\n Finally, the practical effect of Shueisha\u2019s takedown notice is that the material has been\nremoved completely. See In Re DMCA Subpoena to Reddit, Inc., Case No. 3:19-mc-80005-SK,\nD.E. 27 at 28:4-23. At this stage, the primary effect of using Doe\u2019s identity in broader ways is to\nexpose him to additional litigation risk, including foreign proceedings, and to potential retaliation\nor collateral consequences that extend far beyond this Court\u2019s supervision.\n For Doe personally, allowing Shueisha to use Doe Identity Information in foreign\nproceedings would dramatically increase the irreparable harm the Court has already recognized:\nDoe\u2019s identity could be disclosed to foreign courts, regulators, or enforcement agencies over which\nthis Court has no control. More broadly, if \u00a7512(h) subpoenas become a backdoor route to foreign\nenforcement, where Doe\u2019s identity, once disclosed, can be repurposed in jurisdictions and for\nproceedings far beyond the statute\u2019s design, anonymous speakers and website operators will have\nno meaningful way to predict or contest where their identities will ultimately appear. That creates\na serious chilling effect on lawful online expression.\n Doe respectfully requests that the Court enter his proposed protective order.\nShueisha Inc.\u2019s Position\n Shueisha\u2019s declared purpose for obtaining the subpoena in this aligns with the requirements\nof the DMCA \u201cto obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and such information will only be used\nfor the purpose of protecting rights under [title 17 of the United States Code].\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7\n512(h)(2)(c). There has been no showing of good cause justifying issuance of a protective order,\nand no such order is necessary.\n In compliance with the Court\u2019s order, Shueisha submits a proposed protective that would\nlimit Shueisha\u2019s ability to disclose Doe\u2019s identity prior to filing litigation against Doe for the\ninfringement identified in the subpoena. However, Shueisha respectfully requests that the Court\nnot limit its ability to file a copyright infringement action only to U.S. courts. Doe, whose identity\nand location is currently unknown, may be located outside of the reach of U.S. Courts. The Court\nshould not allow Doe to use a protective order to interfere with Shueisha\u2019s right to sue Doe in an\nappropriate jurisdiction. The subpoena is valid, lawfully obtained, and the information obtained\nwill be used in the United States, if possible. Restricting Shueisha\u2019s enforcement options is not\njustified by the DMCA or any recognizable harm to Doe and will waste resources.\nI. There Is No Good Cause for a Protective Order\n Protective orders are exceptional measures justified only by concrete harm that the\nrequesting party has the burden to establish. See In re Violation of Rule 28(D), 635 F.3d 1352, 1358\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20 Filed 12/08/25 Page 5 of 6\nHon. Thomas S. Hixson\nDecember 8, 2025\nPage 4\n(Fed. Cir. 2011). The only harm Doe seeks to avoid are the legal consequences resulting from its\noperation of a massive piracy website. 1 Doe has not articulated a single harm it faces other than\ncopyright enforcement. Doe presents no evidence that Shueisha intends to use Doe\u2019s identity for\nanything other than copyright enforcement, which Doe can defend on the merits.\n Avoiding copyright litigation is not a cognizable harm for purposes of a protective order.\nLikewise, vague, unspecified privacy interests do not prevent disclosure in DMCA subpoena\nmatters. Courts have found the interest of copyright holders to seek limited discovery from a third\nparty to establish a potential infringer\u2019s identity outweighs any privacy interest infringers may\nhave in protecting their identities. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 2019 WL 935390, at *4-*5\n(E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019) (denying infringer\u2019s motion to quash in order to allow plaintiff to\ndetermine whether it can obtain the identity of the proper defendant, and noting defendant could\nraise any factual innocence claim in a motion to dismiss); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No.\nEDCV182496TJHSPX, 2019 WL 12446430, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019)(finding infringer\u2019s\nprivacy interest in personally identifiable information to be minimal).\n Considering Shueisha\u2019s attestation of good faith in seeking Doe\u2019s identity for proper\npurposes, and Doe\u2019s failure to identify any concrete harm that would result from disclosure, the\nCourt should find that there is no good cause for a protective order. However, should the Court\nfind that good cause exists, Shueisha respectfully requests the Court adopt its version of the\nprotective order submitted herewith for the reasons discussed below.\nII. Shueisha\u2019s Proposed Protective Order Limits Use of Doe\u2019s Identity Information to\n Copyright Enforcement Efforts, in Line with DMCA and Copyright Act Policies\n Shueisha\u2019s proposed order follows the Court\u2019s guidance and identifies specific permitted\nuses of Doe\u2019s identity information. See \u00a7 2 of Shueisha\u2019s Proposed Protective Order (listing\npermitted uses). Such uses\u2014in line with Shueisha\u2019s prior attestation\u2014are limited to copyright\nenforcement activities consistent with and permitted under the Copyright Act.\n The Court correctly noted that foreign litigation is outside of the scope of stated purposes\nfor obtaining a DMCA subpoena. Put another way, DCMA subpoenas are only available to rights\nholders intending to pursue their claims within the United States. The validity of the subpoena is\ncontingent upon the honestly stated purpose for which the subpoena is sought. See 17 U.S.C. \u00a7\n512(h)(2)(c) (requiring a declaration that the purpose of the subpoena consistent with Title 17).\nHere, that requirement is met. Shueisha has every intention of pursuing its copyright claims against\nDoe in U.S. courts if possible. The question is: what happens if Doe\u2014whose identity and location\ncould not be discerned prior to filing the DMCA subpoena request\u2014turns out to be outside of the\nreach of U.S. courts?\n There is a difference between a limitation on the permissible purpose for obtaining a\nDMCA subpoena and a limitation on how the obtained information is eventually used. The DMCA\ndoes not appear to prohibit a copyright holder from using infringer identity information outside of\nthe purposes stated in obtaining the subpoena. Likewise, Shueisha could not find any cases in\nwhich a copyright holder was prohibited from filing suit in a foreign jurisdiction based on infringer\ninformation obtained from a DMCA subpoena. In fact, use of DCMA-subpoenaed infringer\nidentity information for purposes outside of the scope of the DMCA has been expressly permitted\nwhere the original declaration was true and the subpoena was validly obtained. See Visual Supply\n\n1\n Under Fed. R. Evid. 201 the Court may take judicial notice of the publicly reported scale of Doe\u2019s infringement\noperation. See, e.g., https://www.cbr.com/mangajikan-manga-piracy-site-shut-down-185-million-monthly-users/\n(reporting Doe\u2019s website had 185 million monthly users prior to Shueisha\u2019s enforcement efforts, making it the 17th\nmost popular page in Japan, outranking Facebook and ChatGPT).\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20 Filed 12/08/25 Page 6 of 6\nHon. Thomas S. Hixson\nDecember 8, 2025\nPage 5\nCo. v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 24-MC-80159-SK, 2025 WL 2684389, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025)\n(Magistrate Judge\u2019s report and recommendation to deny motion to quash DMCA subpoena finding\nthat use of information from DMCA subpoenas to bring trademark claims did not invalidate\nproperly issued subpoenas).Thus, even if, as the Court noted, DMCA subpoenas are not available\nfor a copyright holder intending to pursue copyright claims in a foreign jurisdiction, there is\nnothing in the DMCA that prohibits use of subpoenaed information in other jurisdictions. The\nstatute only addresses when a subpoena should or should not issue; not whether a protective order\nis necessary to restrict the use of the produced information. When the information\u2014obtained in\ngood faith to pursue claims in the United States\u2014reveals the infringer is outside the reach of U.S.\ncourts, it would go against the copyright enforcement policies of the Copyright Act to read the\nstatute as requiring protections for infringers located in foreign jurisdictions. 2 The Court should\nnot read into the DMCA protections for infringers that do not appear in the statute or caselaw.\n Should the Court disagree, it can still adopt Shueisha\u2019s proposed order over Doe\u2019s by\nsimply striking Section 2(c), permitting use in foreign litigation from Shueisha\u2019s proposed order.\nIII. Doe\u2019s Proposed Restrictions Seek to Avoid Copyright Enforcement, not Prevent\n Harm, and Would Waste Court and Party Resources.\n If Shueisha knew when requesting the DMCA Subpoena that Doe was in another\njurisdiction, Shueisha could have pursued a subpoena for discovery in support of foreign litigation\nunder 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1782. The parties disagree on how to address the current situation given that\nShueisha could not know the location of Doe ex ante. Having pursued a DMCA subpoena in good\nfaith, Shueisha should not be limited from using Doe\u2019s identifying information elsewhere if\nlitigation within U.S. courts is unavailable. If Doe is not within the reach of U.S. Courts, Doe\u2019s\nproposed restrictions would force Shueisha to start again by pursuing a \u00a7 1782 subpoena to\nCloudflare seeking the same information, again at unnecessary delay and expense.\n Doe makes his desire to delay or avoid answering for running a piracy website doubly clear\nby asking the Court to restrict Shueisha from using Doe\u2019s identity in foreign copyright litigation,\neven after it is disclosed to the public through a U.S. copyright complaint. Doe is asking the Court\nto restrict Shueisha from using public information to enforce its copyrights in other jurisdictions,\nif Shueisha files suit in the United States. Neither the DMCA nor the Copyright Act were designed\nto impede foreign enforcement of copyrights. Doe\u2019s request should be rejected.\n Given Doe\u2019s obvious aversion to disclosure, the Court and the parties will face unnecessary\nadditional litigation expenses and delays under Doe\u2019s proposed protective order.\nConclusion\n There is no good cause for protecting Doe\u2019s identity from disclosure. Broad restrictions on\nShueisha\u2019s use of validly obtained identity information would contradict both Rule 26(c)\u2019s limited\npurpose and the DMCA\u2019s enforcement purposes. Therefore, the Court should not issue a protective\norder or limit Shueisha\u2019s ability to pursue its copyright claims against Doe.\n If, however, the Court finds good cause to issue a protective order, the Court should adopt\nShueisha\u2019s proposed protective order. Shueisha\u2019s proposed order provides pre-litigation protection\nfor Doe\u2019s identity from uses outside of the scope of the stated purposes of a DMCA subpoena,\nwhile allowing Shueisha to protect its rights consistent with the DMCA\u2019s stated purposes of\ncopyright protection and enforcement.\n\n2\n The Copyright Act is not hostile to foreign rightsholders. Quite the opposite: it includes protections specifically for\ncopyright holders from treaty party nations. See 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 104(b)(2) (providing protection for works published in\nforeign nations that are treaty parties). International cooperation on copyright enforcement is essential to the proper\nfunctioning of the Copyright Act.\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2025-12-08T21:55:20.719375-08:00","document_number":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026519438","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Discovery Letter Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461417005/","id":461417005,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/20/1/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-09T15:59:03.346294-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-16T05:45:56.025783-08:00","sha1":"09fddef5609f7cfeb7b1ba8c03dc02f3a6de1c6c","page_count":19,"file_size":307452,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.20.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.20.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP\n Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. 222187)\n 2 Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107 (Bar No. 343520)\n 548 Market St. #85399\n 3 San Francisco, CA 94104\n 4 Telephone: (415) 955-1155\n Facsimile: (415) 955-1158\n 5 jeff@kr.law\n leah@kr.law\n 6\n Attorneys for John Doe\n 7\n\n 8 GAMMA LAW, P.C.\n Duy Thai (SB 157345)\n 9 Marco Martemucci (SBN 255054)\n One Sansome Street, Suite 3500\n10 San Francisco, California 94104\n Tel.: 415.901.0510\n11\n Fax: 415.901.0512\n12 dthai@gammalaw.com\n MMartemucci@gammalaw.com\n13\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION\n15\n\n16 In re 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h) Subpoena to Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH)\n\n17 CLOUDFLARE, INC.\n [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER\n18 RE: DMCA SUBPOENA (17 U.S.C.\n \u00a7512(h))\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT\n\n 2 This matter arises from a subpoena issued pursuant to 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h) to Cloudflare, Inc.\n\n 3 (\u201cCloudflare\u201d), a U.S.-based service provider, at the request of Shueisha Inc. (\u201cShueisha\u201d), seeking\n\n 4 identifying information for the individual associated with the specific URLs identified in Shueisha\u2019s\n\n 5 DMCA takedown notice and listed in Exhibit A hereto, referred to as \u201cJohn Doe.\u201d\n\n 6 There is currently no civil infringement lawsuit between Shueisha and John Doe in any\n\n 7 United States court. This proceeding is a pre-suit identification request under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h).\n\n 8 The parties agree that the Doe Identity Information (as defined below) warrants\n\n 9 confidentiality protections. A protective order is necessary and appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n10 26(c) and 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h)(2)(C) to: a) limit disclosure and use of Doe Identity Information to\n\n11 purposes expressly authorized under Title 17 of the United States Code; b) prevent irreversible harm\n\n12 from unauthorized dissemination, and c) ensure that Doe\u2019s identity is not used for foreign litigation\n\n13 or otherwise outside of the United States.\n\n14 FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:\n\n15 1. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION ON USE\n\n16 1.1 Sole Purpose of Use.\n17 Permitted Uses. Doe Identity Information and other Protected Information (as defined in\n18 Sections 2.1 and 2.2 below) may be used exclusively for purposes related to protecting Shueisha\u2019s\n19 rights under U.S.C. Title 17. Doe Identity Information and Protected Information may be used solely\n20 to assert, exercise, or resolve any copyright claims by Shueisha in connection with the URLs\n\n21 identified in Exhibit A hereto, and solely in connection with U.S.-based copyright enforcement.\n\n22 Specifically, Doe Identity Information and Protected Information may be used solely for the\n\n23 following purposes:\n\n24 (a) Pre-litigation evaluation. Conducting the limited factual and legal analysis reasonably\n\n25 necessary, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, to determine whether to bring a U.S. copyright claim\n\n26 in connection with the URLs identified in Exhibit A;\n\n27 (b) Filing and prosecution of a U.S. copyright infringement action. Filing, prosecuting,\n\n28 and litigating a copyright infringement claim against John Doe based solely on the URLs in Exhibit\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 1 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 A in a United States federal or state court;\n\n 2 (c) Settlement negotiations, cease and desist communications, and licensing.\n\n 3 Negotiating a settlement agreement, licensing arrangement, or other resolution of potential claims\n\n 4 with John Doe, or with authorized counsel representing John Doe;\n\n 5 (d) Service of process. Serving legal process on John Doe in connection with a filed U.S.\n\n 6 copyright infringement action based on the URLs in Exhibit A;\n\n 7 (e) Coordination with federal law enforcement. Coordinating with U.S. federal law\n\n 8 enforcement authorities who have responsibility for prosecuting criminal copyright infringement\n\n 9 under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7506 in connection with the alleged infringement of the specific works identified\n\n10 in Exhibit A only.\n\n11 Scope Limitation. Use of the Doe Identity Information and Protected Information is strictly\n\n12 limited to the works, facts, circumstances, and URLs identified in Shueisha\u2019s subpoena and listed\n\n13 in Exhibit A, and any use concerning other works, URLs, or domains, or otherwise unrelated to\n\n14 Exhibit A, is prohibited.\n\n15 1.2 Prohibited Uses.\n\n16 The following uses are prohibited:\n17 (a) Use for purposes outside Title 17 U.S. copyright enforcement. Doe Identity\n18 Information and Protected Information shall not be used for any purpose outside the permitted uses\n19 set forth in Section 1.1, including but not limited to:\n20 \u2022 Any foreign proceeding, investigation, enforcement action, or litigation; or\n\n21 \u2022 Any non-copyright legal claim or regulatory matter.\n\n22 (b) Correlation, profiling, and data-aggregation techniques. Doe Identity\n\n23 Information shall not be used to build any broader profile or dossier of John Doe beyond the minimal\n\n24 identity necessary to assert and resolve the Exhibit A claims, including by data-mining, cross-\n\n25 correlation, or similar enrichment techniques, absent further order of this Court.\n\n26 (c) Public disclosure, media notification, or third-party dissemination unrelated to\n\n27 permitted purposes. Doe Identity Information shall not be:\n\n28 \u2022 Disclosed to media outlets, members of the public, or the general internet;\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 2 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 \u2022 Used for public-relations purposes or to affect John Doe's reputation, employment, or online\n\n 2 presence;\n\n 3 \u2022 Provided to industry associations, copyright collectives, trade groups, anti-piracy\n\n 4 organizations, or other third parties not involved in this matter; or\n\n 5 \u2022 Disclosed to any person or entity not expressly authorized in Section 7.1 of this Order.\n\n 6 (d) Unsealing or downgrading the Confidential \u2013 Designated Persons Only designation.\n\n 7 Doe Identity Information and any Protected Information revealing John Doe's identity may not be\n\n 8 downgraded from \u201cCONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SPECIFIC DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS ONLY \u2013\n\n 9 SUBJECT TO COURT ORDER\u201d or disclosed beyond the designated recipients identified in\n\n10 Section 7.1 without a prior written order of this Court. Any challenge to the designation must follow\n\n11 the procedures in Section 6 and bears the burden of proof on the party seeking to downgrade\n\n12 confidentiality.\n\n13 2. DEFINITIONS\n\n14 2.1 \u201cDoe Identity Information.\u201d\n15 \u201cDoe Identity Information\u201d means information that may, on its own or in conjunction with\n16 other information, identify John Doe, including: Legal name, postal street address, city, state, and\n17 ZIP code, telephone numbers, email addresses, secondary email addresses, billing or payment data,\n18 account numbers, customer IDs, usernames, login identifiers, technical or account information,\n19 device identifiers, and IP addresses or logs.\n20 2.2 \u201cProtected Information.\u201d\n\n21 \u201cProtected Information\u201d means Doe Identity Information and any other information that\n\n22 could directly or indirectly reveal Doe\u2019s identity or control over the account associated with the\n\n23 URL(s) in Exhibit A, plus any copies, summaries, notes, excerpts, metadata, audit logs, or analyses\n\n24 derived from such information.\n\n25 2.3 \u201cDoe-Linked URLs.\u201d\n\n26 \u201cDoe-Linked URLs\u201d means exclusively the URLs identified in Exhibit A that:\n\n27 \u2022 Appear in Shueisha's DMCA takedown notice, and\n\n28 \u2022 Are actually associated with John Doe's Cloudflare account.\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 3 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 5 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 2.4 Outside Counsel of Record.\n\n 2 \u201cOutside Counsel of Record\u201d means attorneys who are admitted to practice in the United\n\n 3 States, and have appeared or will appear as counsel for Shueisha in this matter or any resulting U.S.\n\n 4 copyright infringement lawsuit.\n\n 5 \u201cOutside Counsel of Record\u201d does not include:\n\n 6 \u2022 In-house counsel or corporate employees of Shueisha;\n\n 7 \u2022 Foreign-admitted counsel or foreign agents;\n\n 8 \u2022 Investigators, vendors, contractors, or consultants;\n\n 9 \u2022 Affiliates or subsidiaries of the Subpoenaing Party;\n\n10 \u2022 Industry associations, collecting societies, or governmental authorities.\n11 2.5 Shueisha Decision-Maker.\n12 \u201cShueisha Decision-Maker\u201d means a senior manager, officer, or in-house counsel of\n13 Shueisha Inc. whose role includes authority to decide whether to pursue settlement, licensing,\n14 litigation, or other enforcement with respect to potential copyright claims. A \u201cShueisha Decision-\n15 Maker\u201d must meet all of the following criteria:\n16 Identification and internal listing. Before any individual at Shueisha is given access to\n17 Doe Identity Information or Protected Information as a Shueisha Decision-Maker, Shueisha shall\n18 record that person\u2019s full name, position/title within Shueisha, primary business location, and\n19 business contact information in an internal list of Shueisha Decision-Makers. (b) Execution of\n20 Acknowledgment. Each Shueisha Decision-Maker must execute the Acknowledgment and\n\n21 Agreement to Be Bound (Exhibit B) before accessing any Protected Information and must remain\n\n22 bound by all terms of this Order.\n\n23 (c) Limited Number. No more than five (5) Shueisha Decision-Makers may access Doe\n\n24 Identity Information or any other Protected Information without further written order of this Court.\n\n25 Any request to increase the number of authorized Decision-Makers beyond five requires a separate\n\n26 motion to this Court with a particularized showing of necessity.\n\n27 (d) Internal Access Log. Shueisha shall maintain and preserve a contemporaneous\n\n28 internal Access Log documenting:\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 4 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 6 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 \u2022 The name and title of each Shueisha Decision-Maker who accessed Doe Identity\n\n 2 Information or Protected Information;\n\n 3 \u2022 The date and time of each access;\n\n 4 \u2022 The duration of access;\n\n 5 \u2022 The materials accessed; and\n\n 6 \u2022 Any downloads, exports, or copies made during the session.\n\n 7 Shueisha shall provide this access log to John Doe's counsel upon request and shall produce it to\n\n 8 this Court upon motion or as otherwise directed by the Court.\n\n 9 (e) No Delegation. A Shueisha Decision-Maker may not delegate access to or share Doe\n\n10 Identity Information or Protected Information with any other person, including other employees,\n\n11 contractors, or agents of Shueisha.\n\n12 2.6 \u201cSubpoenaing Party.\u201d\n\n13 \u201cSubpoenaing Party\u201d means Shueisha Inc. and its Outside Counsel of Record.\n14 2.7 Receiving Party.\n15 \u201cReceiving Party\u201d means any party or person who receives Doe Identity Information or\n16 Protected Information under this Order, including Outside Counsel of Record, Shueisha Decision-\n17 Makers, and the Court.\n18 2.8 Access Log.\n19 \u201cAccess Log\u201d means a contemporaneous written record maintained by Shueisha\n20 documenting each instance of access to Protected Information by a Shueisha Decision-Maker,\n\n21 including the date, time, duration, identity of the accessor, materials accessed, and any copies or\n\n22 exports made. The Access Log must be maintained in a secure manner and produced to John Doe's\n\n23 counsel and/or the Court upon request or as otherwise ordered.\n\n24 3. SCOPE\n\n25 3.1 Coverage.\n\n26 The confidentiality and use restrictions in this Order apply to:\n\n27 \u2022 Doe Identity Information and Protected Information itself;\n\n28 \u2022 Any copies, excerpts, summaries, notes, metadata, access logs, or compilations that reveal\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 5 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 7 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 Doe Identity Information and Protected Information;\n\n 2 \u2022 Any testimony, written communications, or presentations that would disclose Doe Identity\n\n 3 Information and Protected Information;\n\n 4 \u2022 Any derivative use or further analysis based on Doe Identity Information and Protected\n\n 5 Information; and\n\n 6 \u2022 Any material produced by the Service Provider (Cloudflare) in response to the 512(h)\n\n 7 subpoena.\n\n 8 3.2 Exclusions from Scope.\n\n 9 This Order does not restrict:\n\n10 \u2022 Information that is in the public domain prior to production under this Order; or\n11 \u2022 Information that was lawfully known to the Receiving Party before this disclosure.\n12 Notwithstanding the above, no Receiving Party has any right to affirmatively disclose,\n13 publish, or disseminate Doe Identity Information or any Protected Information, even if it later\n14 appears in the public domain through a third party's wrongful act.\n15 3.3 Subject-Matter Scope of Protective Order.\n16 This Protective Order is limited to information related to:\n17 \u2022 The specific Doe-Linked URLs listed in Exhibit A hereto;\n18 \u2022 Account information directly associated with the Doe-Linked URLs only.\n19 4. DURATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY OBLIGATIONS\n20 4.1 Continuing Obligation.\n\n21 The confidentiality restrictions, prohibitions on use, and access limitations imposed by this\n\n22 Order remain in full force and effect unless and until modified by further written order of this Court\n\n23 upon a showing of good cause.\n\n24 4.1(a) Obligations in Future-Filed U.S. Case.\n\n25 Until a future protective order is entered in any U.S.-filed copyright infringement action,\n\n26 Shueisha may identify Doe only to the extent necessary to satisfy applicable pleading and service\n\n27 requirements.\n\n28 4.2 Express Survival of Prohibited Uses. The prohibitions contained in Section 1.2(a) survive the\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 6 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 8 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 filing of any U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit or any disclosure of Doe Identity Information\n\n 2 disclosed by Service Provider in response to the subpoena.\n\n 3 4.3 Survival of Obligations After Destruction.\n\n 4 Even after Protected Information is destroyed pursuant to Section 13.2 below, each\n\n 5 Receiving Party remains bound by the use restrictions and confidentiality obligations of this Order.\n\n 6 No Receiving Party may use knowledge gained from Protected Information (nor any derivative\n\n 7 conclusions) for any purpose outside those expressly permitted by Section 1.1.\n\n 8 5. DESIGNATION OF PROTECTED MATERIAL\n\n 9 5.1 Automatic Confidential Status.\n\n10 All Protected Information, including Doe Identity Information, is automatically designated\n11 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SPECIFIC DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS ONLY \u2013 SUBJECT TO\n12 COURT ORDER\u201d\n13 and may only be disclosed to the Authorized Recipients identified in Section 7.1(a)-(e).\n14 5.2 Inadvertent Omissions.\n15 If any Protected Information is produced without an AEO legend or similar marking, it is\n16 still Protected Information and subject to this Order. The producing Service Provider or Doe\u2019s\n17 counsel may correct the designation, and all Receiving Parties must treat it as AEO from the outset.\n18 6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS\n19 6.1 Meet and Confer Requirement.\n20 If Shueisha believes a portion of Protected Information has been over-designated and does\n\n21 not actually reveal Doe Identity Information or other identity-related information, Shueisha shall\n\n22 provide written notice to John Doe\u2019s counsel. The notice must:\n\n23 \u2022 Explicitly state that it is a confidentiality designation challenge under this paragraph;\n\n24 \u2022 Identify the specific material and explain why it is believed not to be Protected Information;\n\n25 and\n\n26 \u2022 Be followed by good-faith voice-to-voice discussion between counsel within 14 days.\n\n27\n\n28 6.2 Judicial Intervention\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 7 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 9 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 If the parties cannot agree, they may file a joint letter brief in compliance with the Court's\n\n 2 Standing Order on Discovery Disputes. The burden of proof remains on Shueisha to show that the\n\n 3 material is not Doe Identity Information or Protected Information, or the basis for the need for\n\n 4 additional investigation and the specific additional investigation Shueisha would take and to whom\n\n 5 Doe\u2019s Identity Information or Protected Information is sought to be disclosed. Failure to file within\n\n 6 21 days results in waiver of the challenge. Frivolous challenges and those made for an improper\n\n 7 purpose are subject to sanctions.\n\n 8 7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL\n\n 9 7.1 Authorized Recipients Only.\n\n10 Doe Identity Information and Protected Information may be accessed and reviewed only\n11 by:\n12 (a) Court Personnel: This Court, its staff, and appointed judicial officers;\n13 (b) John Doe\u2019s counsel: Counsel representing John Doe, their necessary legal staff, and\n14 expert consultants or investigators who have signed the Acknowledgment and Agreement attached\n15 as Exhibit B;\n16 (c) Shueisha's Outside Counsel of Record: U.S.-admitted counsel retained by Shueisha\n17 who have signed the Acknowledgment and Agreement attached as Exhibit B, and are responsible\n18 for ensuring that Doe Identity Information is shared only with the limited Shueisha Decision-\n19 Makers;\n20 (d) Shueisha Decision-Makers (Limited): No more than five (5) senior officers or\n\n21 managers of Shueisha Inc. whose role includes decision-making authority regarding settlement,\n\n22 licensing, or litigation, each of whom must satisfy the definition and requirements of a \u201cShueisha\n\n23 Decision-Maker\u201d in Section 2.5 and must execute the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be\n\n24 Bound (Exhibit B) before accessing any Doe Identity Information or other Protected Information.\n\n25 (e) U.S. federal copyright enforcement authorities, acting within their lawful authority:\n\n26 1) for the sole purpose of protecting Shueisha\u2019s intellectual property rights in connection with Doe-\n\n27 Linked URLs identified in Exhibit A hereto, and in accordance with Section 1.1; 2) only for the\n\n28 time period of the earliest known appearance of the allegedly infringing content through the date\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 8 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 10 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 the 512(h) subpoena was issued to Cloudflare.\n\n 2 Prohibited Recipients: Protected Information may not be disclosed to:\n\n 3 \u2022 In-house counsel, corporate employees, officers, or directors (except the five identified\n\n 4 Shueisha Decision-Makers per Section 7.1(d));\n\n 5 \u2022 Investigators, vendors, contractors, or consultants;\n\n 6 \u2022 Affiliates or subsidiaries of Shueisha;\n\n 7 \u2022 Industry associations, collecting societies, or anti-piracy organizations;\n\n 8 \u2022 Foreign counsel or agents;\n\n 9 \u2022 Any other person or entity not explicitly listed above.\n\n10 7.2 Storage and Security.\n\n11 Doe Identity Information and Protected Information shall be stored and processed under\n12 encryption and tamper-evident access logs, on systems controlled by Outside Counsel of Record.\n13 7.3 Final Compliance Certification.\n14 Within 10 days after destruction is required under \u00a713.2, the Subpoenaing Party\u2019s Outside\n15 Counsel of Record shall serve on John Doe\u2019s counsel a declaration, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n16 \u00a71746, certifying that: (a) all Doe Identity Information and Protected Information has been\n17 destroyed; and (b) no Doe Identity Information or Protected Information was disclosed outside AEO\n18 recipients authorized by this Order.\n19 7.4 Access Controls.\n20 Doe Identity Information and Protected Information shall be:\n\n21 \u2022 Subject to automatic, tamper-evident access logging that records:\n\n22 \u2022 The identity of each person accessing Doe Identity Information and Protected\n\n23 Information;\n\n24 \u2022 The date, time, and duration of access;\n\n25 \u2022 Which files or materials were accessed;\n\n26 \u2022 Any downloads, copies, exports, or printouts made; and\n\n27 \u2022 Any failed access attempts;\n\n28 \u2022 Subject to Shueisha\u2019s internal Access Log (as defined in Section 2.8), which must be\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 9 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 11 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 maintained concurrently and produced to John Doe's counsel upon request.\n\n 2 All access logs (both electronic system logs and Shueisha\u2019s internal record) shall be preserved and\n\n 3 produced to Doe\u2019s counsel or this Court upon motion or as otherwise ordered. Failure to maintain\n\n 4 accurate logs or evidence of tampering with logs may result in sanctions, contempt findings, or\n\n 5 termination of Shueisha\u2019s access rights.\n\n 6 7.5 Responsibility of Shueisha's Outside Counsel of Record.\n\n 7 Shueisha's Outside Counsel of Record is solely responsible for:\n\n 8 \u2022 Ensuring that only the identified Shueisha Decision-Makers access Doe Identity Information\n\n 9 and Protected Information;\n\n10 \u2022 Verifying the identity of each Decision-Maker before access;\n11 \u2022 Maintaining accurate records of all access, consistent with the Access Log requirements in\n12 Section 2.8;\n13 \u2022 Ensuring each Decision-Maker executes the Acknowledgment (Exhibit B) before any\n14 access;\n15 \u2022 Preventing any unauthorized onward disclosure to persons not listed in Section 7.1;\n16 \u2022 Immediately reporting any unauthorized access, disclosure, or violation to John Doe's\n17 counsel and the Court; and\n18 \u2022 Certifying compliance with all Access Log and audit requirements in the Final Compliance\n19 Certification under Section 7.3.\n20 8. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED PRODUCED ELSEWHERE.\n\n21 8.1 Notice of Third-Party Demand or Subpoena\n\n22 If any person in possession of Doe Identity Information or Protected Information receives a\n\n23 subpoena, discovery request, demand, or court order from any other court, tribunal, agency,\n\n24 arbitration body, or party seeking Doe Identity information or other Protected Information, that\n\n25 person must:\n\n26 (a) Immediately notify. Promptly notify John Doe\u2019s counsel in writing and provide a copy\n\n27 of the subpoena or demand;\n\n28 (b) Provide notice to requesting party. Promptly provide the party issuing the subpoena\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 10 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 12 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 or demand with a copy of this Order and inform them that the material is subject to a protective\n\n 2 order;\n\n 3 (c) Cooperate in seeking protection. Allow this Court to have a reasonable opportunity to\n\n 4 enter a protective order or assert protection before any disclosure occurs. A person served with a\n\n 5 subpoena or demand for Doe Identity Information or Protected Information shall not produce Doe\n\n 6 Identity Information or Protected Information unless and until:\n\n 7 \u2022 This Court expressly orders production, or\n\n 8 \u2022 John Doe consents in writing, or\n\n 9 \u2022 The time for seeking protection from this Court has expired and no protection has been\n\n10 obtained; and\n\n11 (d) Preserve the record. Keep this Court informed of any third-party demand and of the\n\n12 steps being taken to protect Doe Identity Information.\n\n13 8.2 Burden on Designating Party\n\n14 John Doe bears the burden and cost of seeking protection from any court or tribunal.\n15 Shueisha shall cooperate in any such effort by, at minimum, notifying John Doe's counsel promptly\n16 and not contesting John Doe's right to seek protection.\n17 9. PROTECTION OF SERVICE PROVIDER\u2019S PRODUCTION\n18 9.1 Service Provider.\n19 Cloudflare, Inc. (the Service Provider) is not a signatory to this Order but is intended to be\n20 a beneficiary of its protections. Cloudflare's production of Doe Identity Information or other\n\n21 Protected Information is made directly to Outside Counsel of Record under the terms and\n\n22 protections of this Order.\n\n23 All Doe Identity Information and Protected Information produced by Cloudflare is\n\n24 automatically treated as confidential and subject to all protections herein.\n\n25\n\n26 10. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE\n\n27 If any Receiving Party learns that Protected Information has been disclosed, accessed,\n\n28 copied, exported, or transmitted in violation of this Order, that Receiving Party must:\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 11 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 13 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 (a) Immediately notify John Doe\u2019s counsel, in writing, of discovery of the unauthorized\n\n 2 disclosure or access, providing:\n\n 3 \u2022 A description of what information was disclosed or accessed;\n\n 4 \u2022 When the disclosure or access occurred;\n\n 5 \u2022 To whom or to what location it was disclosed; and\n\n 6 \u2022 The identity of any person responsible for the disclosure.\n\n 7 (b) Take all reasonable steps to:\n\n 8 \u2022 Retrieve all unauthorized copies;\n\n 9 \u2022 Prevent further dissemination; and\n\n10 \u2022 Secure the information and sequester it.\n11 (c) Inform all recipients that the material is subject to this Order and must remain\n12 confidential.\n13 (d) Provide a sworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746 describing:\n14 \u2022 The nature and scope of the unauthorized disclosure;\n15 \u2022 All persons who received the information;\n16 \u2022 All remedial steps taken; and\n17 \u2022 Whether the disclosing party believes the unauthorized recipient can or will comply with\n18 this Order.\n19 11. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION / CLAWBACK\n20 If privileged, work-product, or otherwise legally protected material is inadvertently\n\n21 produced, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) and Fed. R. Evid. 502 apply. The producing party or Service\n\n22 Provider may provide notice of the inadvertent production, and all Receiving Parties must promptly\n\n23 return or destroy the material. Such inadvertent production does not constitute waiver of privilege\n\n24 or protection.\n\n25 Nothing in this Order waives any objection to scope, burden, jurisdiction, venue, personal\n\n26 jurisdiction, service, admissibility, proportionality, or the merits.\n\n27 12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS\n\n28 12.1 Pre-Suit Notification.\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 12 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 14 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 If Shueisha intends to file a U.S. copyright action using Doe Identity Information, Shueisha\n\n 2 must give Doe\u2019s counsel written notice in advance or contemporaneously with the filing. Such pre-\n\n 3 suit notification allows Doe to evaluate the attendant harms of disclosure of his identifying\n\n 4 information and seek appropriate relief promptly in such future U.S. case.\n\n 5 12.2 No independent source.\n\n 6 Shueisha\u2019s own public filing of Doe Identity Information in connection with a U.S.\n\n 7 copyright infringement lawsuit does not become an independent source that frees it from the\n\n 8 use/disclosure limits in this Order, including but not limited to prohibited uses contained in Section\n\n 9 1.2(a), in connection with Service Provider\u2019s production, unless and until further order of this Court.\n\n10 12.3 Compliance is Not Admission.\n\n11 This Order imposes no obligations regarding the merits of any potential copyright claim and\n12 does not constitute an admission by John Doe or Shueisha regarding:\n13 \u2022 Infringement or non-infringement;\n14 \u2022 Copyright ownership;\n15 \u2022 Jurisdiction or venue;\n16 \u2022 Willfulness or good faith;\n17 \u2022 Damages;\n18 \u2022 Any other substantive or procedural issue.\n19 12.4 Filing Under Seal.\n20 Protected Information, including Doe Identity Information, may not be filed publicly, unless\n\n21 and until Shueisha files a U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States. Any future filing\n\n22 in this case (4:25-mc-80147) that would reveal Protected Information or Doe Identity Information\n\n23 must be submitted under seal and must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and Civil L.R. 79-5. Public\n\n24 versions shall redact Doe\u2019s identity, and the public docket shall continue to refer to Doe as \u201cJohn\n\n25 Doe.\u201d\n\n26 12.5 Cost Allocation / No Duty To Create New Data.\n\n27 The Service Provider shall not be required to generate new reports, run new scripts, or\n\n28 compile new datasets beyond what exists in the ordinary course of business. Reasonable production\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 13 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 15 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 costs may be shifted to the Subpoenaing Party, subject to fee motion if disputed.\n\n 2 12.6 Right to Further Relief.\n\n 3 Nothing in this Order precludes any person from seeking modification, clarification, or\n\n 4 relief from this Court at any time. Any such request must be made by written motion and must be\n\n 5 served on all parties.\n\n 6 12.7 Court Control Over Modification.\n\n 7 Only this Court may modify any provision of this Order.\n\n 8 13. FINAL DISPOSITION\n\n 9 13.1 Termination of this Order.\n\n10 This protective order remains in effect and does not terminate unless and until modification\n11 or termination by this Court and upon a showing of good cause.\n12 13.2 Destruction of Protected Information\n13 13.2(a) Destruction Deadline\n14 Within 30 days after the later of:\n15 \u2022 Termination of this order pursuant to Section 13.1;\n16 \u2022 The expiration of the statute of limitations for Shueisha to file a U.S.-based copyright\n17 infringement lawsuit against Doe; or\n18 \u2022 Final judgment and exhaustion of appeals in any U.S. copyright infringement action filed\n19 by Shueisha against John Doe based on the Doe-Linked URLs,\n20 each Receiving Party must destroy all Protected Information, including all copies, summaries, notes,\n\n21 metadata, access logs, audit logs, and any other material revealing Doe Identity Information or other\n\n22 Protected Information.\n\n23 13.2(b) Archival Exception\n\n24 Notwithstanding the above:\n\n25 \u2022 John Doe\u2019s counsel may retain one archival copy for record-keeping, litigation history, and\n\n26 enforcement of this Order; and\n\n27 \u2022 This Court may retain sealed filings and materials in its records.\n\n28 All archival copies remain subject to the full confidentiality and use restrictions of this Order,\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 14 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 16 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 indefinitely.\n\n 2 13.3 Destruction Certification and Audit\n\n 3 The Final Compliance Certification required by Section 7.3 shall be served on John Doe\u2019s\n\n 4 counsel after destruction is completed under Section 13.2. The certification must include:\n\n 5 (a) Destruction Certification:\n\n 6 \u2022 All Protected Information and all copies, summaries, notes, metadata, and access logs that\n\n 7 would reveal Doe Identity Information have been destroyed;\n\n 8 \u2022 One archival copy (if retained) is held only by John Doe\u2019s counsel and remains subject to\n\n 9 this Order.\n\n10 (b) Compliance Certification:\n\n11 \u2022 No Doe Identity Information or Protected Information was disclosed to unauthorized\n12 persons;\n13 \u2022 All Shueisha Decision-Makers and their access complied with the restrictions in this Order;\n14 \u2022 Shueisha maintained accurate internal Access Logs consistent with Section 2.8 throughout\n15 the period of access; and\n16 \u2022 Failure to timely or accurately certify, or evidence of non-compliance revealed by the Access\n17 Log review, may result in immediate sequestration or destruction of Doe Identity\n18 Information and Protected Information and in sanctions.\n19 (c) Access Log Production:\n20 \u2022 A copy of Shueisha\u2019s complete internal Access Log (as defined in Section 2.8) shall be\n\n21 produced to John Doe's counsel concurrently with the Final Compliance Certification, so\n\n22 that John Doe may independently verify compliance.\n\n23 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD:\n\n24 DATED: ___________, 2025 KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP\n\n25\n\n26 By:\n Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107\n27\n Attorneys for John Doe\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 15 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 17 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 DATED: _____________, 2025 GAMMA LAW, P.C.\n\n 2\n s/\n 3 Marco Martemucci\n 4\n\n 5\n\n 6 PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO\n 7 ORDERED.\n 8\n\n 9 DATED: __________________________\n10\n\n11 ________________________________________\n12 Hon. Thomas S. Hixson, United States Magistrate Judge\n13 Northern District of California\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 16 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 18 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 EXHIBIT A\n\n 2 John Doe URLs\n\n 3 Doe-Linked URLs referenced in Shueisha\u2019s DMCA takedown notice and in the \u00a7512(h)\n\n 4 subpoena to Cloudflare, consisting solely of the URL(s) actually associated with John Doe\u2019s\n\n 5 Cloudflare account:\n\n 6\n\n 7 https://www.mangajikan.com/chapter-441853.html\n\n 8 https://jpoo.alammanga.com/JP00/120647/3nfi22cjai.jpg.\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 17 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-1 Filed 12/08/25 Page 19 of 19\n\n\n\n 1 EXHIBIT B\n\n 2 Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\n\n 3 I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of _________________ [print or\n\n 4 type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and understand\n\n 5 the Stipulated Protective Order that was issued by the United States District Court for the Northern\n\n 6 District of California on [date] in the case of ___________ [insert formal name of the case and\n\n 7 the number and initials assigned to it by the court]. I agree to comply with and to be bound by\n\n 8 all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge that failure to so\n\n 9 comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise\n\n10 that I will not disclose in any manner any information or item that is subject to this Stipulated\n\n11 Protective Order to any person or entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order.\n\n12 I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern\n\n13 District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order, even\n\n14 if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action.\n\n15 I hereby appoint __________________________ [print or type full name] of\n\n16 _______________________________________ [print or type full address and telephone number]\n\n17 as my California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any proceedings\n\n18 related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order.\n\n19\n\n20 Date: ______________________________________\n\n21 City and State where sworn and signed: _________________________________\n\n22\n\n23 Printed name: _______________________________\n\n24\n\n25 Signature: __________________________________\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH) [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 18 SUBPOENA\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-12-16T00:01:12.080356-08:00","document_number":"20","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035026519439","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order Doe Revised Prop Protective Order After Judge Hixson Order (DRAFT","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461417006/","id":461417006,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/20/2/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-09T15:59:03.392839-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-16T05:39:31.223625-08:00","sha1":"02eeff0a92042e7248708deb6488870fbf475f31","page_count":3,"file_size":133887,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.20.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.20.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-2 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n GAMMA LAW, P.C.\n 1 Duy Thai (SB 157345)\n 2 Marco Martemucci (SBN 255054)\n One Sansome Street, Suite 1400\n 3 San Francisco, California 94104\n Tel.: 415.901.0510\n 4 Fax: 415.901.0512\n dthai@gammalaw.com\n 5\n mmartemucci@gammalaw.com\n 6 Attorneys for Shueisha Inc.\n 7 KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP\n 8 Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. 222187)\n Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107 (Bar No. 343520)\n 9 548 Market St. #85399\n San Francisco, CA 94104\n10 Telephone: (415) 955-1155\n Facsimile: (415) 955-1158\n11\n jeff@kr.law\n12 leah@kr.law\n\n13 Attorneys for John Doe\n\n14\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n15\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n16 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION\n\n17 In re 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h) Subpoena to Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n18 CLOUDFLARE, INC.\n [SHUEISHA\u2019S PROPOSED]\n19\n PROTECTIVE ORDER\n20 RE: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION\n PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO DMCA\n21 SUBPOENA (17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h))\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-2 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 The Court, having considered the parties\u2019 submissions regarding a protective order governing\n\n 2 disclosure of identifying information produced pursuant to a subpoena issued under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n 3 512(h), and good cause appearing, hereby ORDERS:\n\n 4 1. Protected Information\n\n 5 The term \u201cProtected Information\u201d refers to any personally identifying information (\u201cPII\u201d)\n\n 6 relating to John Doe, the Cloudflare, Inc. customer and alleged copyright infringer identified as\n\n 7 being responsible for the URLs listed in the \u00a7 512(h) subpoena issued by Shueisha, Inc. (\u201cShueisha\u201d)\n\n 8 in this matter, including but not limited to name, physical address, email address, telephone number,\n\n 9 financial information, or IP address logs.\n\n10 2. Permitted Uses\n\n11 Protected Information shall be used solely for purposes contemplated under the Copyright\n\n12 Act, including:\n\n13 a) Identifying the alleged infringer to Shueisha and its counsel;\n\n14 b) Evaluating, preparing, or initiating a copyright infringement action in a U.S. court;\n\n15 c) Filing a copyright infringement action in a foreign court;\n\n16 d) Investigating, negotiating, or settling copyright infringement claims prior to, or in lieu of,\n\n17 copyright litigation;\n\n18 e) Effectuating service of process if a lawsuit is filed.\n\n19 Protected Information shall not be used for any other purpose, including pre-litigation public\n\n20 disclosure, harassment, commercial use, or publication. Protected Information may be filed publicly\n\n21 without seal in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Shueisha against Doe.\n\n22 3. Access\n\n23 Access to Protected Information shall be limited to:\n\n24 a) Counsel of record for the subpoenaing party;\n\n25 b) Paralegals, staff, or experts working at the direction of counsel;\n\n26 c) The Court or court personnel as necessary;\n\n27 d) Shueisha officers, directors, employees, consultants, agents, and retained experts working\n\n28 on Sheuisha\u2019s copyright enforcement efforts regarding this matter.\n 2\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 20-2 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 1 All persons receiving Protected Information must be advised of, and agree to be bound by,\n\n 2 this Protective Order.\n\n 3 4. Non-Disclosure\n\n 4 Shueisha shall not disclose Protected Information to any third party other than those listed in\n\n 5 Section 3 unless:\n\n 6 1. The disclosure is reasonably necessary for any of the purposes identified in Section 2;\n\n 7 2. The Doe has been named as a defendant in a filed complaint \u2013 at which point all\n\n 8 protections under this order cease.\n\n 9 Until and unless a complaint is filed identifying Doe by their name as a party, Protected\n\n10 Information shall remain confidential and not publicly disclosed, except with the Court\u2019s permission.\n\n11 5. Return or Destruction\n\n12 If no action is filed before the expiration of all statutes of limitation on Shueisha\u2019s copyright\n\n13 claims against Doe arising from this matter, counsel for the Shueisha shall destroy or return all\n\n14 Protected Information to the producing entity and certify destruction upon request.\n\n15 6. Modification\n\n16 The Court may modify this Order for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties.\n\n17 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n18\n\n19 DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________\n United States District/Magistrate Judge\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-12-16T00:01:25.566398-08:00","document_number":"20","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035026519440","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order Shueisha [Proposed] Protective Order (12.05","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-08T16:35:40.070207-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.647535-08:00","date_filed":"2025-12-08","time_filed":"16:00:30","entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":60,"description":"Second Discovery Letter Briefre: Protective Order [pursuant to D.E. 19] filed by Shueisha Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Doe Revised Prop Protective Order After Judge Hixson Order (DRAFT 11.25.25), # 2 Proposed Order Shueisha [Proposed] Protective Order (12.05)(Martemucci, Marco) (Filed on 12/8/2025) (Entered: 12/08/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445281016/","id":445281016,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/459971180/","id":459971180,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/19/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-24T16:31:08.230769-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T01:46:35.940375-08:00","sha1":"e55f4785c66bd439dc23465db9ff96f11e4000fd","page_count":4,"file_size":113384,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.19.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.19.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 19 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3\n\n 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n 6\n\n 7 IN RE DMCA SUBPOENA TO Case No. 25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH)\n CLOUDFLARE, INC.\n 8\n DISCOVERY ORDER\n 9\n Re: Dkt. No. 16\n 10\n\n 11\n\n 12\nNorthern District of California\n\n\n\n\n In ECF No. 14, Judge Gonzalez Rogers denied Doe\u2019s motion to quash and ordered the\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13\n parties \u201cto, within thirty (30) days of this Order, meet and confer and submit a proposed protective\n 14\n order to the Court that prohibits the disclosure and use of John Doe\u2019s identity for any purpose\n 15\n unrelated to the purpose of the subpoena.\u201d ECF No. 14 at 4. The parties have now filed a joint\n 16\n discovery letter brief with competing proposed orders. ECF No. 16. The Court finds neither\n 17\n proposed order acceptable and instead issues this order to provide the parties further guidance.\n 18\n A. Purpose of the Subpoena\n 19\n The purpose of the subpoena is defined by the attestation Shueisha had to make to obtain\n 20\n it: \u201cthe purpose for which the subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity of an alleged infringer\n 21\n and that such information will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title.\u201d\n 22\n 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(h)(3). The parties disagree about what it means to \u201cprotect[] rights under this\n 23\n title,\u201d so the Court will provide its thoughts.\n 24\n First, \u201cthis title\u201d means title 17 of the United States Code, so Doe is correct that only U.S.-\n 25\n based copyright claims are within the purpose of the subpoena. Foreign litigation is outside of that\n 26\n scope. The right to sue for copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 501(b), includes the right to\n 27\n investigate before suing, as claims should be properly investigated before being brought. See Fed.\n 28\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 19 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1 R. Civ. Proc. 11. The right to sue also includes the right to settle, whether before or after a lawsuit\n\n 2 is filed, as that is how the vast majority of legal claims ultimately get resolved. The right to sue\n\n 3 also includes the right to send a cease and desist letter to determine if a lawsuit is unnecessary.\n\n 4 Further, because the copyright owner has the exclusive \u201crights\u201d to do \u201cand to authorize\u201d certain\n\n 5 things, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 106, the Court thinks that negotiating a licensing arrangement is also\n\n 6 protective of rights under title 17, as it may bring ongoing conduct into the authorization of the\n\n 7 copyright owner. In addition, because willful copyright infringement can be a criminal offense, 17\n\n 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 506, the Court thinks that coordinating with federal law enforcement authorities who\n\n 9 have responsibility for prosecuting criminal copyright infringement is protective of rights under\n\n 10 title 17.\n\n 11 But some of Shueisha\u2019s ideas of what the purpose of the subpoena is go far afield. For\n\n 12 example, notifying others whose works were infringed is not protective of Shueisha\u2019s rights under\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 title 17. And coordinating with \u201claw enforcement\u201d is too vague and open ended, as most law\n\n 14 enforcement officers do not have copyright prosecutions in their purview.\n\n 15 The parties have submitted competing protective orders, each of which has a section 1.1,\n\n 16 entitled \u201cSole Purpose of Use.\u201d Both sides\u2019 sections 1.1 are defective, and both for the same\n\n 17 reason: They do not say what the Doe Identity Information can be used for. Each section 1.1 says\n\n 18 who the information can be disclosed to, but says nothing about what they can use it for. Thus,\n\n 19 while the parties have a strong disagreement about permitted uses in the joint discovery letter\n\n 20 brief, neither of them attempted to put their ideas into words,\n\n 21 B. Other Comments\n 22 The Court has some other observations:\n\n 23 1. In their competing sections on \u201cprohibited uses,\u201d the parties each propose limitations on\n\n 24 direct contact with Doe, aside from service of process. Doe\u2019s proposed protective order has\n\n 25 repetitive provisions to that effect throughout. As far as the Court can tell, the parties are\n\n 26 attempting to implement the ethical rule that a represented litigant should be contacted through\n\n 27 counsel. The Court does not understand what this is doing in a protective order. The protective\n\n 28 order should address confidentiality rules, and that\u2019s it. Of course everybody also has to comply\n 2\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 19 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1 with their ethical obligations.\n\n 2 2. Doe proposes a long list of prohibited uses. These seem like they should all be\n\n 3 unnecessary if he could just come up with a good description of what the information can be used\n\n 4 for \u2013 which, as noted, neither side has done.\n\n 5 3. Because the Court thinks that licensing arrangements are protective of title 17 rights,\n\n 6 the Court will allow at least some people within Shueisha to see the Doe Identity Information. It\n\n 7 is not realistic to expect that a licensing negotiation could be managed without the client knowing\n\n 8 who they are negotiating with.\n\n 9 4. Although the Court thinks that title 17 rights exist only under U.S. law, the Court does\n\n 10 not see why there should be a requirement that the Doe Identity Information should only\n\n 11 physically reside in the U.S. The Court does not know where Shueisha\u2019s computer servers are and\n\n 12 does not see why that matters.\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 5. Does wants the Doe Identity Information to exclude certain things, such as billing or\n\n 14 payment data, and he wants to limit it to certain time periods. However, the purpose of the\n\n 15 protective order is to address confidentiality; this is not a second opportunity to move to quash or\n\n 16 limit the subpoena.\n\n 17 6. Doe seems to think that Shueisha has to sue him as a \u201cdoe.\u201d But no, it doesn\u2019t.\n\n 18 Remember: the protective order should \u201cprohibit[] the disclosure and use of John Doe\u2019s identity\n\n 19 for any purpose unrelated to the purpose of the subpoena.\u201d ECF No. 14 at 4 (emphasis added).\n\n 20 Suing Doe for copyright infringement is definitely related to the purpose of the subpoena.\n\n 21 7. Doe\u2019s proposed protective order is cluttered with repeated, redundant provisions stating\n\n 22 that the information is confidential. Those are unnecessary.\n\n 23 8. The Court will not require Shueisha to bring a copyright action within 180 days of\n\n 24 disclosure of the information. Congress already said what the deadline is to sue for copyright\n\n 25 infringement, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 507, and there is no good reason to give Shueisha less time than that.\n\n 26 Besides, there is no guarantee that the produced information will be good enough to bring a claim.\n\n 27 It also might be the case that once Shueisha learns who Doe is (if the information definitively\n\n 28 shows that), it may want to investigate him further before deciding whether to sue.\n 3\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 19 Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1 C. Next Steps\n\n 2 The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer with the above guidance in mind and\n\n 3 to file one of two things within 14 days: (1) a stipulated protective order, or (2) a joint discovery\n\n 4 letter brief not to exceed five pages and competing proposed protective orders.\n\n 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n 6\n\n 7 Dated: November 24, 2025\n\n 8\n THOMAS S. HIXSON\n 9 United States Magistrate Judge\n 10\n\n 11\n\n 12\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\n 14\n\n 15\n\n 16\n\n 17\n\n 18\n\n 19\n\n 20\n\n 21\n\n 22\n\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-11-25T00:15:25.558187-08:00","document_number":"19","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026474381","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Discovery Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T16:31:08.166725-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T01:46:35.926713-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-24","time_filed":"16:11:16","entry_number":19,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-24.003","pacer_sequence_number":56,"description":" Discovery Order re: 16 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re: Protective Order. The parties shall meet and confer and file within 14 days either: (1) a stipulated protective order, or (2) a joint discovery letter brief and competing proposed protective orders. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 11/24/2025. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445204060/","id":445204060,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/459892550/","id":459892550,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-11-24T10:05:26.077907-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T10:05:26.084957-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for Discovery","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T10:05:26.057627-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-24T10:05:26.057642-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-24","time_filed":"09:30:18","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445203845/","id":445203845,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/459892336/","id":459892336,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/18/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-24T10:05:11.947245-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.466366-08:00","sha1":"47f890e5d89b57c803e7f8f20b8660bd1d6c7ab4","page_count":1,"file_size":102195,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.18.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.18.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 18 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3\n\n 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n 6\n IN RE SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE,\n 7 INC., Case No. 25-mc-80147-YGR (TSH)\n 8\n NOTICE OF REFERRAL FOR\n 9 DISCOVERY\n 10\n\n 11\n\n 12\nNorthern District of California\n\n\n\n\n This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for all discovery. For any\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13\n pending matters at the time of referral, the Court will issue a separate order. For all future\n 14\n discovery-related matters, the parties must comply with the undersigned\u2019s Discovery Standing\n 15\n Order, available on the Court\u2019s website at https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/hixson-thomas-s-tsh/.\n 16\n Please direct any questions to the undersigned\u2019s Courtroom Deputy at\n 17\n tshcrd@cand.uscourts.gov or (415) 522-4067.\n 18\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n 19\n\n 20\n Dated: November 24, 2025\n 21\n\n 22 THOMAS S. HIXSON\n United States Magistrate Judge\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-11-24T10:09:15.735262-08:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026471241","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-24T10:05:11.871883-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.429442-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-24","time_filed":"09:46:18","entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-24.002","pacer_sequence_number":54,"description":"NOTICE OF REFERENCE FOR DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 11/24/2025. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2025) (Entered: 11/24/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/445033807/","id":445033807,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/459716611/","id":459716611,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/17/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-21T14:44:13.500897-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.361702-08:00","sha1":"6416766f343b9bcccd71aab77853e8e350e9d453","page_count":1,"file_size":141539,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.17.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.17.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 17 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 5\n\n 6 Case No.: 25-mc-80147- YGR\n 7\n ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE\n 8 JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY\n IN RE DMCA SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE,\n 9 INC.\n 10\n\n 11\n\n 12\n Pursuant to Local Rule 72-1 this matter is REFERRED to a Magistrate Judge for all discovery\n Northern District of California\nUnited States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13\n matters, including the pending Joint Discovery Letter Brief (Dkt. No. 16).\n 14\n For any pending discovery dispute, after the parties have met and conferred, the parties shall\n 15\n prepare a joint letter of not more than 8 pages explaining the dispute. Up to 12 pages of attachments\n 16\n may be added. The joint letter must be electronically filed under the Civil Events category of\n 17\n \u201cMotions and Related Filings --> Motions--> General --> Discovery Letter Brief.\u201d The Magistrate\n 18\n Judge to whom the matter is assigned will advise the parties of how the matter will proceed. The\n 19\n Magistrate Judge may issue a ruling, order additional briefing, or set a telephone conference or a\n 20\n hearing.\n 21\n Hereafter, all further discovery matters shall be filed pursuant to the assigned Magistrate\n 22\n Judge\u2019s procedures. The parties shall contact the courtroom deputy of the assigned Magistrate Judge\n 23\n for information about those procedures. Information may also be available on the court\u2019s website.\n 24\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n 25\n Dated: November 21, 2025\n 26 _______________________________________\n YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS\n 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE\n 28 cc: CAND MagRef\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-11-21T14:59:01.783522-08:00","document_number":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026466456","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge for Discovery","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-21T14:44:13.419863-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.337534-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-21","time_filed":"14:16:19","entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":48,"description":"ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 11/21/2025. (eac, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2025) (Entered: 11/21/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/444066587/","id":444066587,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458724882/","id":458724882,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/16/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-13T15:33:23.901004-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.310084-08:00","sha1":"126ec2e30933eec9c47bfa8133126b3de6e51d52","page_count":5,"file_size":239763,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.16.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.16.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\nNovember 13, 2025\n\n\nHon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge\n1301 Clay St.\nCourtroom 1 \u2013 4th Floor\nOakland, CA 94612\n\nVIA ECF\n\nRE: In Re. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h) Subpoena to Cloudflare, Inc. (Shueisha Inc.),\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n Joint Discovery Letter re: Protective Order\n\nDear Hon. Judge Gonzalez Rogers:\n\n Pursuant to D.E. 14, Non-Party John Doe and Petitioner Shueisha Inc. jointly submit this\ndiscovery letter regarding a proposed protective order.\n\n Counsel for the parties met and conferred via telephone and video conference on October\n23, 2025 and November 4, 2025. The parties were unable to reach agreement on a single protective\norder. Each party sets forth their respective position below. Additionally, filed concurrently\nherewith the parties submit their own proposed protective orders for the Court\u2019s review and\ndetermination.\n\n\nSincerely,\n KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP GAMMA LAW, P.C.\n\n s/ Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107 s/ Marco Martemucci\n Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107 (SBN 343520) Marco Martemucci (SBN 255054)\n 548 Market St. #85399 One Sansome Street, Suite 1400\n San Francisco, CA 94104 San Francisco, California 94104\n Telephone: (415) 955-1155 Tel.: 415.901.0510\n Facsimile: (415) 955-1158 Fax: 415.901.0512\n leah@kr.law MMartemucci@gammalaw.com\n Attorneys for Non-Party John Doe Attorneys for Shueisha Inc.\n\f Case Gonzalez\nHon. Yvonne 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n Rogers Document 16 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 5\nNovember 13, 2025\nPage 1\n\n\nJohn Doe\u2019s Position\n John Doe respectfully submits that the terms set forth in his version of the Proposed\nProtective Order are necessary and appropriate for a pre-suit DMCA \u00a7512(h) identification\nproceeding, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), to address unique privacy and due process\nconcerns here. The Court expressly ordered the parties to submit a proposed protective order,\nprohibiting the disclosure and use of John Doe\u2019s identity for any purpose unrelated to the\npurpose of the subpoena. (D.E. 14, 4:13-16.) The only purpose of the subpoena is to obtain Doe\u2019s\nidentity for use in protecting Shueisha\u2019s copyrights under U.S. copyright law. 17 U.S.C.\n\u00a7512(h)(2)(C); see Braun v. Primary Distrib. Doe No. 1, 2012 WL 6087179, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec.\n6, 2012). Any further use of Doe\u2019s identity, such as for actions outside the U.S. necessarily outside\nthe scope of U.S. copyright laws, must be prohibited. See Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v.\nAutomattic, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1159 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Shueisha refuses this limitation.\nHowever, \u00a7512(h) expressly limits use of disclosed information to prosecuting claims of copyright\ninfringement under U.S. law. 17 U.S.C. The DMCA does not contemplate use of subpoenaed\ninformation in foreign proceedings or for other purposes\u2014or to notify completely absent third\nparties of an alleged infringer\u2019s identity. Shueisha\u2019s stated intentions blatantly exceed the scope.\n Shueisha claims that there is no good cause for a protective order. But Shueisha\u2019s position\nand proposed order make clear its intent to expose Doe publicly for purposes unrelated to its own\nrights. And, courts allow protective orders, including with AEO provisions, in DMCA subpoena\ncases. See In re DMCA Subpoena To Reddit, Inc., 383 F. Supp. 3d 900, 916 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (court\nordered protective order keeping a Doe\u2019s identity under seal, AEO, including in any later-filed\ninfringement lawsuit; Article III judge later quashed subpoena entirely) (R&R rejected on other\ngrounds, 441 F. Supp. 3d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2020)). Shueisha\u2019s own submission shows a protective\norder is necessary. Shueisha outright admits it wants to use Doe\u2019s identity to \u201cnotify others whose\nworks were infringed\u201d\u2014 a purpose outside of a DMCA subpoena. Shueisha thus admits that its\ngoals exceed identifying Doe, including to expose him to others for alleged infringement that isn\u2019t\nsubstantiated at all.1 This is precisely why a robust protective order is necessary: to prevent the\nimproper use of Doe\u2019s identity. Notably, the protective order only applies to John Doe and not any\nother alleged infringer; Shueisha is free to do whatever it wants with other identifying data\ndisclosed by Cloudflare, unrelated to Doe. Further, to the extent Shueisha complains that it may\nnot be able to definitively identify Doe from information provided by Cloudflare, based on the\nlimited time frame when allegedly infringing material was posted, Shueisha may have issued its\nDMCA takedown to the actual host of the websites, not a pass-through provider such as Cloudflare.\n1. Attorneys\u2019-Eyes-Only (\u201cAEO\u201d) Designation (\u00a7\u00a71.2, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1)\n John Doe\u2019s identity information should be designated \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\nATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY.\u201d Disclosure of identity beyond outside counsel creates real risk of\nharassment, reputational harm, and loss of anonymity, especially given Shueisha\u2019s admitted stated\nintent of sharing Doe\u2019s identity with others. Once such information is disclosed outside the most\nessential persons on a need-to-know basis, there is risk of irreversible harm if information is\nmisused, publicly disseminated, or transmitted cross-border. See Art of Living Found. v. Does 1-\n10, 2011 WL 5444622, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (the disclosure of one\u2019s identity is itself\nirreparable harm). No subsequent court order can undo that exposure, especially across borders\nwhere this Court\u2019s supervisory power is limited.\n The AEO limitation is narrowly confined to identity information (\u00a72.1), grants full outside\ncounsel access, and does not prejudice litigation \u2014 while serving as the least-restrictive means to\n1\n Shueisha\u2019s characterization of Doe\u2019s website as a \u201cmassive piracy website\u201d is unfounded, subjective, and irrelevant.\n\f Case Gonzalez\nHon. Yvonne 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n Rogers Document 16 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 5\nNovember 13, 2025\nPage 2\n\n\navoid foreseeable harassment and reputational damage, including online spillover risks. AEO\nprotection does not impede rights to file and serve U.S. litigation, and is essential given the absence\nof pending U.S. action and uncertainties about intended use. In the alternative, Doe requests that\nthe Court order that Shueisha\u2019s U.S. counsel plus up to two Shueisha management personnel, may\nreview Cloudflare\u2019s production, after signing the Acknowledgment and Agreement to be bound.\n2. Scope of Information (\u00a72.1), Time Frame (\u00a73.4), & Doe-Linked URLs (\u00a7\u00a72.3, 3.3)\n Doe does not object to production of name and postal address, but notes that phone numbers\nand similar information should be excluded unless specifically ordered by the Court pursuant to a\nparticularized showing. In addition, the time period of the disclosure must be limited to the dates\nthe specific images were available at the identified URLs; and the URLs must be limited to only\nthe URLs identified in Shueisha\u2019s Subpoena linked to Doe (lines 1 and 2).\n In particular, requests for billing and payment information, hosting providers, IP logs,\nothers hosting content or contracting parties, and access log information are vastly overbroad and\nnot limited to identifying John Doe. Indeed, such information could lead to identifying any private\nindividual who ever accessed the images, without any notice to these individuals.\n3. Additional Subpoenas (\u00a71.2(f), 8.1)\n Additional subpoenas should be governed by Court order, not by right. Doe\u2019s Proposed\nProtective Order prohibits chained, open-ended subpoenas and specifies that any additional requests\nmust be explicitly approved\u2014under seal, limited to minimal identifiers, non-content only, and\nsubject to an objection window. The addition of safeguards addresses concerns about fishing\nexpeditions, proportionality, and compliance with the narrow aims of \u00a7512(h) and Rule 26(c).\n4. Limiting Use to U.S. Proceedings and the 180-Day Period (\u00a7\u00a71.2(a), 13.5)\n Doe\u2019s Proposed Protective Order restricts use of identity information to U.S.-based\nlitigation/service, solely in connection with the URLs in Ex. A and only within 180 days of\ndisclosure, unless further extended upon a showing of good cause. Braun v. Primary Distrib. Doe\nNo. 1, 2012 WL 6087179 at *8 (limiting service of lawsuit to 120 days after discovery of identity).\nThis tracks the DMCA \u00a7512(h) oath (providing only for use in protecting rights under Title 17),\nensures that compelled disclosure is not used for unrelated or foreign matters, and respects the\nprinciple that any foreign discovery should proceed with judicial oversight. The limitations provide\nclarity, accountability, and due process protection, while allowing extensions if justified.\n Notably, Shueisha has filed numerous requests for \u00a7512(h) subpoenas, which do not appear\nto have resulted in subsequent copyright infringement cases in the U.S. A search of Pacer shows\nonly one U.S. copyright infringement case actually brought by Petitioner Shueisha, and it was\nagainst John Does, seeking identifying information, and was not prosecuted against a named\ndefendant (No. 1:19-cv-08227-LJL-SN, S.D.N.Y.). This supports a reasonable inference that\ncompelled identity information is not exclusively used to bring U.S. copyright cases, reinforcing\nthe need for strict use, audience, geography, and time limited in the protective order.\n5. U.S.-Only Storage, No Disclosure to Client Personnel/Abroad (\u00a7\u00a71.3, 7.2)\n The restriction against access, storage, transfer, or disclosure of protected information\noutside the U.S. (and beyond outside U.S.-admitted counsel) ensures effective Court supervision\nand protection against misuse, especially given data protection and privacy implications across\ndifferent jurisdictions. A reading room or audit-logged secure U.S. data repository could best\nbalance practical needs against legitimate privacy and cross-border risks, keeping supervision\nwithin reach of this Court.\n For these reasons, Doe urges the Court to adopt Doe\u2019s Proposed Protective Order.\nShueisha Inc.\u2019s Position\n\f Case Gonzalez\nHon. Yvonne 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n Rogers Document 16 Filed 11/13/25 Page 4 of 5\nNovember 13, 2025\nPage 3\n\n\n Shueisha seeks to identify non-party John Doe for the sole purpose of pursuing its\ncopyright enforcement options against Doe. This is entirely in line with the purpose of 17 U.S.C.\n\u00a7 512(h), aptly titled \u201c[s]ubpoena to identify infringer.\u201d Doe now seeks to effectively invalidate\nboth this Court\u2019s denial of Doe\u2019s motion to quash the subpoena and undercut the DMCA\u2019s clear\npurpose of publicly identifying copyright pirates. Doe\u2019s proposed protective order is impossible to\nadopt without going against the purpose of 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(h) and copyright enforcement policy.\n1. There Is No Good Cause for a Rule 26(c) Protective Order\n Protective orders are exceptional measures justified only by concrete harm that the\nrequesting party has the burden to establish. See In re Violation of Rule 28(D), 635 F.3d 1352,\n1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Even when potential specific harm is found, the court must balance \u201cthe\npublic and private interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary.\u201d In re Roman Cath.\nArchbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Glenmede Tr. Co. v.\nThompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (\u201cBroad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by\nspecific examples, do not satisfy Rule 26(c).\u201d and listing factors to balance).\n Here, Doe has not articulated a plausible, particularized harm. Doe is simply attempting to\navoid legal consequences that should result their operation of a massive piracy website.2 Does has\nnot articulated a single harm it faces other its desire to avoid copyright enforcement.\n Doe baselessly speculates that the relative lack of Shueisha copyright complaints filed in\nU.S. courts suggests some other, inappropriate use of the subpoenaed information. However, Doe\nignores that Shueisha can use infringer identity information to issue cease-and-desist letters,\nnegotiate licensing arrangements, obtain pre-litigation settlement, and assess and drop matters\ndeemed not cost-effective for litigation. These are some of the valuable enforcement options that\nshould remain available to Shueisha; none of which would have been found on court dockets.\n Courts have found the interest of copyright holders to seek limited discovery from a third\nparty to establish a potential infringer\u2019s identity outweighs any privacy interest infringers may\nhave in protecting their identities. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 2019 WL 935390, at *4-*5\n(E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019) (denying infringer\u2019s motion to quash in order to allow plaintiff to\ndetermine whether it can obtain the identity of the proper defendant, and noting defendant could\nraise any factual innocence claim in a motion to dismiss); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No.\nEDCV182496TJHSPX, 2019 WL 12446430, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019)(finding infringer\u2019s\nprivacy interest in personally identifiable information to be minimal).\n There is no good cause for a protective order, least of all for Doe\u2019s restrictive version.\n2. A Broad Protective Order Frustrates Enforcement and Rewards Concealment\n Granting an infringer\u2019s request for sweeping protective order restrictions inverts the logic\nof Rule 26(c) and the purpose of the DMCA subpoena process. Protective orders are meant to\nshield sensitive personal information, trade secrets, or competitive data, not to insulate willful\ninfringers from accountability. The DMCA subpoena process is intended to unmask infringers to\nallow enforcement against them. Doe will have the opportunity to defend on the merits in litigation.\n Doe\u2019s proposal would obstruct further lawful investigation and litigation. Shueisha must\nbe free to use identifying information to pursue claims wherever appropriate, coordinate with law\nenforcement, seek additional subpoenas if the identifying information in the production is\ninsufficient, or notify others whose works were infringed. Doe\u2019s proposed order would prevent\nsuch uses and would improperly convert the subpoena into a one-time, sealed transaction, contrary\n\n2\n Under Fed. R. Evid. 201 the Court may take judicial notice of the publicly reported scale of Doe\u2019s infringement\noperation. See, e.g., https://www.cbr.com/mangajikan-manga-piracy-site-shut-down-185-million-monthly-users/\n(reporting Doe\u2019s website had 185 million monthly users prior to Shueisha\u2019s enforcement efforts).\n\f Case Gonzalez\nHon. Yvonne 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n Rogers Document 16 Filed 11/13/25 Page 5 of 5\nNovember 13, 2025\nPage 4\n\n\nto Rule 26 and the DMCA\u2019s enforcement goals. Specifically, Doe\u2019s request for a 180-day limit on\nthe use of the data conflicts with the statute of limitations for copyright actions. Doe\u2019s request to\nlimit enforcement to the United States ignores that Doe may be located abroad beyond the reach\nof U.S. Courts. Doe\u2019s proposal would also restrict Shueisha from using the subpoenaed data to\nidentify and pursue potential other infringers identifiable. None of these outcomes are acceptable.\n In addition, Doe\u2019s proposal would impose unnecessary administrative burdens on the\nCourt. Doe\u2019s overly complex proposal will undoubtedly spawn disputes over compliance, access,\nand inadvertent disclosure. Applying an automatic Attorney\u2019s Eyes-Only designation to all\nproduced documents and restricting Shueisha\u2019s ability to request additional subpoenas or serve\nprocess on Doe without prior court approval are just two examples of just how far Doe is reaching.\nMoreover, forcing Shueisha to unnecessarily pursue additional subpoenas in support of foreign\nlitigation, if necessary, under 28 U.S.C. 1782, to obtain the exact same information sought in the\npending subpoena would be a waste of judicial resources. These issues are entirely avoidable by\nforgoing a protective order or, if the Court deems it necessary, by utilizing Shueisha\u2019s more\nnarrowly tailored proposed order.\n3. Public Interest Strongly Favors Transparency and Accountability\n Federal courts recognize a presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. See Nixon v.\nWarner Commc\u2019ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This presumption carries special force where,\nas here, the underlying conduct affects the integrity of the copyright system and the economic\nviability of creative industries. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing who operates large-\nscale piracy sites and how the DMCA process vindicates statutory rights. Sealing or concealing\nthose identities under an expansive and restrictive protective order would erode public confidence\nin both the DMCA and the Court\u2019s enforcement role.\n4. Limited, Targeted Protections Adequately Address Any Legitimate Concern\n If the Court finds any basis for a protective order at all, it should confine the order\u2019s\nrestrictions to the minimum necessary to prevent misuse of personal data, as proposed in\nShueisha\u2019s proposed protective order, which includes the following components:\n \u2022 Permitting use of the information solely for purposes of investigating and prosecuting\n infringement, while allowing public disclosure as necessary for filings or enforcement;\n \u2022 Allowing redaction of sensitive contact information from publicly filed documents;\n \u2022 Prohibiting use of information for purposes unrelated to copyright enforcement.\n These narrow provisions would satisfy Rule 26(c)\u2019s requirement of proportionality without\ngranting the infringer the de facto anonymity that Congress expressly refused to guarantee in\n\u00a7 512(h). Anything broader would improperly allow infringers like Doe to use protective orders\nas a mechanism of continued immunity from enforcement.\nConclusion\n Because the anonymous infringer, Doe, has no specific, good-cause basis for extensive\nconfidentiality protections or limitations on Shueisha\u2019s ability to pursue its copyrights, and because\nbroad restrictions would contradict both Rule 26(c)\u2019s limited purpose and the DMCA\u2019s\nenforcement design, the Court should not issue a protective order. If the court finds that good cause\nand specific non-enforcement-related harms to Doe exist, the Court should grant only the narrowly\ntailored protections limited to redacting personal identifiers or genuinely sensitive information\nprior to the onset of litigation reflected in Shueisha\u2019s proposed protective order. Doe\u2019s request for\nsweeping protections for their infringing activities should be denied.\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2025-11-14T11:59:42.824243-08:00","document_number":"16","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026430491","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Discovery Letter Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458814252/","id":458814252,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/16/1/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-14T11:44:50.161258-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-27T03:10:20.471631-08:00","sha1":"10456791f349c5bd82e53376feec289919a8b5dc","page_count":16,"file_size":180037,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.16.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.16.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP\n Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. 222187)\n 2 Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107 (Bar No. 343520)\n 548 Market St. #85399\n 3 San Francisco, CA 94104\n 4 Telephone: (415) 955-1155\n Facsimile: (415) 955-1158\n 5 jeff@kr.law\n leah@kr.law\n 6\n Attorneys for John Doe\n 7\n\n 8 GAMMA LAW, P.C.\n Marco Martemucci (SBN 255054)\n 9 One Sansome Street, Suite 3500\n San Francisco, California 94104\n10 Tel.: 415.901.0510\n Fax: 415.901.0512\n11\n MMartemucci@gammalaw.com\n12\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION\n14\n In re 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h) Subpoena to Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n15\n\n16 CLOUDFLARE, INC.\n [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER\n17 RE: DMCA SUBPOENA (17 U.S.C.\n \u00a7512(h))\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT\n\n 2 This matter arises from a subpoena issued pursuant to 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h) to Cloudflare, Inc.,\n\n 3 a U.S.-based service provider, at the request of Shueisha Inc., a non-U.S. rights holder (the \u201cDMCA\n\n 4 Subpoena\u201d). The DMCA Subpoena seeks identifying information for the individual associated with\n\n 5 the specific URL(s) identified in Shueisha\u2019s DMCA takedown notice and listed in Exhibit A hereto,\n\n 6 which Shueisha attributes to \u201cJohn Doe.\u201d\n\n 7 There is currently no civil infringement lawsuit between Shueisha and John Doe in any\n\n 8 United States court. This proceeding is a pre-suit identification request under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h). It\n\n 9 is not ordinary discovery in an active civil action.\n10 This Protective Order prohibits the disclosure and use of John Doe\u2019s identity for any purpose\n\n11 unrelated to the purpose of the DMCA Subpoena.\n\n12 Any information sufficient to identify John Doe (\u201cDoe Identity Information,\u201d as defined in\n\n13 \u00a72.1 below) shall be treated as confidential, shall not be publicly disclosed, and shall be designated\n\n14 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY under this Protective Order.\n\n15 Good cause exists under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h)(2)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n16 45 to impose strict limits on the use and disclosure of Doe Identity Information in this narrow, pre-\n\n17 suit identification proceeding, and to prevent misuse.\n\n18 FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:\n\n19 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS\n\n20 1.1 Sole Purpose of Use.\n\n21 Protected Information, including any Doe Identity Information as defined in \u00a72.1, may be\n\n22 used only to provide Outside Counsel of Record admitted to practice in the United States with Doe\n\n23 Identity Information for the individual, if any, alleged to be responsible for the specific URL(s)\n\n24 identified in Shueisha\u2019s DMCA takedown notice and listed in Exhibit A. Such information may be\n\n25 disclosed only to the limited recipients authorized in \u00a77.1, and may not be used to initiate direct\n\n26 contact with John Doe.\n27 1.2 Prohibited Uses.\n\n28 Absent further written order of this Court, no Party, counsel, agent, or other person may\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 1 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 disclose or use any Protected Information, including any Doe Identity Information, for any purpose\n\n 2 other than the limited purpose set forth in \u00a71.1. Prohibited uses include, without limitation:\n\n 3 (a) Initiating or attempting any direct contact with John Doe, including by email, phone,\n\n 4 social media, physical mail, in-person approaches, or purported \u201cservice\u201d of documents. Direct\n\n 5 contact is permitted only if this Court expressly authorizes service of process in a filed U.S.\n\n 6 copyright infringement action brought within 180 days of disclosure under this Order and based\n\n 7 solely on the URL(s) identified in Exhibit A.\n\n 8 (b) Attempting to negotiate, demand, or solicit any \u201clicense,\u201d \u201csettlement,\u201d \u201ccease-and-\n\n 9 desist,\u201d payment, admission, or other concession directly from John Doe. Communication through\n10 John Doe\u2019s counsel is permitted. If John Doe is unreachable through his undersigned counsel,\n\n11 however, Shueisha Inc.\u2019s Outside Counsel of Record may apply to this Court (through the Court\u2019s\n\n12 designated discovery dispute process, and after fulfilling meet-and-confer requirements), for\n\n13 reconsideration of this provision.\n\n14 (c) Any public dissemination or publicity, including disclosure to media, use for public-\n\n15 relations leverage, or any attempt to affect John Doe\u2019s reputation, employment, business\n\n16 relationships, or online accounts.\n\n17 (d) Any use in, or disclosure to, any other lawsuit, investigation, arbitration, administrative\n\n18 or regulatory process, law-enforcement inquiry, or foreign proceeding of any kind.\n\n19 (e) Any use to assert, investigate, expand, or build claims concerning any domain, URL,\n\n20 subdomain, mirror, site, project, content, or account that is not expressly listed in Exhibit A to this\n\n21 Order.\n\n22 (f) Any use to seek, support, or justify additional subpoenas, demands, or requests for\n\n23 information from any service provider or other third party beyond the limited purpose authorized\n\n24 by \u00a71.1, or any use of Protected Information, alone or together with payment or billing records, IP\n\n25 address and timestamp data, location data, device or browser identifiers, cookie or account-ID data,\n\n26 or publicly available sources, to expand, cross-reference, or build any broader profile of John Doe\n27 absent express further order of this Court.\n\n28 (g) Any disclosure of Protected Information, including Doe Identity Information, to any\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 2 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 4 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 person or entity other than (i) this Court, or (ii) Outside Counsel of Record admitted to practice in\n\n 2 the United States and their necessary staff or experts who have executed the acknowledgment\n\n 3 required by \u00a77 and are bound by this Order. This prohibition includes, without limitation, client\n\n 4 personnel, in-house counsel, corporate officers, employees, affiliates, investigators, vendors,\n\n 5 contractors, industry associations, trade groups, collecting societies, anti-piracy or enforcement\n\n 6 vendors, non-U.S. counsel, non-U.S. agents, foreign regulators, ministries, law-enforcement\n\n 7 authorities, or government officials.\n\n 8 1.3 No Cross-Border / No Internal Dissemination.\n\n 9 Unless this Court orders otherwise, Protected Information shall not be transferred, stored,\n10 backed up, or accessed outside the United States, and shall not be disclosed to in-house counsel,\n\n11 corporate officers, employees, investigators, affiliates, contractors, industry associations, or non-\n\n12 U.S. counsel or agents of the Subpoenaing Party. Access is restricted to the Court and to Outside\n\n13 Counsel of Record admitted in the United States (plus their necessary staff or experts who sign the\n\n14 acknowledgment described in \u00a77 and are bound by this Order).\n\n15 1.4 Counsel-Only Channels.\n\n16 The parties\u2019 U.S. Outside Counsel of Record have already established working lines of\n\n17 communication regarding this subpoena, including meet-and-confer discussions regarding scope\n\n18 and protection. All further communications, notices, and service related to Doe shall proceed\n\n19 through counsel. Direct contact with Doe (including by email, phone, social media, or postal mail)\n\n20 is prohibited unless and until this Court authorizes such contact.\n\n21 1.5 No Merits Finding.\n\n22 This Order governs only the \u00a7512(h) identification process. It makes no findings and permits\n\n23 no inference regarding infringement, liability, willfulness, damages, jurisdiction, venue, or any\n\n24 other merits issue.\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 3 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 5 of 16\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2 2. DEFINITIONS\n\n 3 2.1 \u201cDoe Identity Information.\u201d\n\n 4 \u201cDoe Identity Information\u201d means information sufficient to identify John Doe, including\n\n 5 Doe\u2019s legal name and, if the Court so orders, street address, city, state, and zip code of residence or\n\n 6 principal place of business. \u201cDoe Identity Information\u201d expressly excludes telephone numbers,\n\n 7 email addresses, billing or payment data, account numbers, customer IDs, usernames, login\n\n 8 identifiers, or technical or hosting information.\n\n 9 2.2 \u201cProtected Information.\u201d\n10 \u201cProtected Information\u201d means Doe Identity Information and any other information that\n\n11 could directly or indirectly reveal Doe\u2019s identity or control over the account associated with the\n\n12 URL(s) in Exhibit A, plus any copies, summaries, notes, excerpts, metadata, audit logs, or analyses\n\n13 derived from such information.\n\n14 2.3 \u201cDoe-Linked URLs.\u201d\n\n15 \u201cDoe-Linked URLs\u201d means only the URL(s) identified in Exhibit A that (i) appear in\n\n16 Shueisha\u2019s DMCA takedown notice, D.E. 1-3, and (ii) are actually associated with Doe\u2019s Cloudflare\n\n17 account or zone (for example, two paths or mirrors of the same page). Other domains, mirrors,\n\n18 subdomains, historic content, or affiliated sites are outside the scope of this Order.\n\n19 2.4 \u201cSubpoenaing Party.\u201d\n\n20 \u201cSubpoenaing Party\u201d means the applicant for the \u00a7512(h) subpoena (Shueisha Inc.) and its\n\n21 Outside Counsel of Record admitted to practice in the United States.\n\n22 2.5 \u201cService Provider.\u201d\n\n23 \u201cService Provider\u201d means any non-party responding to the \u00a7512(h) subpoena with\n\n24 information, including Cloudflare, Inc.\n\n25 2.6 \u201cOutside Counsel of Record.\u201d\n\n26 \u201cOutside Counsel of Record\u201d means counsel admitted to practice in the United States who\n27 have appeared or will appear in this matter. For the avoidance of doubt, \u201cOutside Counsel of\n\n28 Record\u201d does not include in-house counsel, corporate employees, foreign counsel, investigators, or\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 4 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 6 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 affiliates of the Subpoenaing Party.\n\n 2 2.7 \u201cUnrelated Purpose.\u201d\n\n 3 \u201cUnrelated Purpose\u201d means any purpose other than the narrow identification purpose\n\n 4 described in \u00a71.1. Without limitation, \u201cUnrelated Purpose\u201d includes publicity, settlement leverage,\n\n 5 non-U.S. enforcement, attempts to build damages theories, portfolio or licensing campaigns, or\n\n 6 efforts to obtain or compel additional data from other intermediaries.\n\n 7 2.8 \u201cExpanded Production.\u201d\n\n 8 \u201cExpanded Production\u201d means any information request beyond the initial disclosure\n\n 9 authorized by \u00a72.1 (for example: IP addresses, access logs, billing or payment information, account\n10 numbers, host or origin server information, phone numbers, email addresses, or physical addresses).\n\n11 Expanded Production is presumptively out of scope unless and until the Court orders otherwise on\n\n12 a particularized showing.\n\n13 2.9 \u201cCorrelation / Matching Techniques.\u201d\n\n14 \u201cCorrelation / Matching Techniques\u201d refers to any attempt to use Protected Information,\n\n15 alone or together with other data, to expand, cross-reference, or build any broader profile of John\n\n16 Doe. Other data includes payment or billing records, IP address and timestamp or location data,\n\n17 device or browser identifiers, cookie or account-ID data, and any publicly available or open-source\n\n18 research. Use of Protected Information for any such technique is prohibited absent further order.\n\n19 3. SCOPE\n\n20 3.1 Coverage.\n\n21 The protections in this Order cover: (a) Protected Information itself; (b) any copies, excerpts,\n\n22 summaries, notes, metadata, audit logs, or compilations that reveal Protected Information; and (c)\n\n23 any testimony, presentations, communications, or filings that would reveal Protected Information.\n\n24 3.2 Exclusions.\n\n25 This Order does not restrict information that is (i) already lawfully in the public domain\n\n26 prior to any production under this Order, or (ii) later becomes public through no breach of this\n27 Order. Nothing in this subsection authorizes any Party or counsel to make Doe\u2019s identity, or any\n\n28 Protected Information derived from subpoena compliance, public. Doe\u2019s identity is expressly\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 5 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 7 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 defined as AEO-only and non-public as set forth in \u00a77.\n\n 2 3.3 Object Scope \u2014 Exhibit A Only.\n\n 3 Production is limited to the Doe-Linked URLs in Exhibit A. Requests targeting other URLs,\n\n 4 other domains, other mirrors, affiliates, or historic content are outside this Order and will not be\n\n 5 enforced.\n\n 6 3.4 Temporal Scope \u2014 Hard Anchors.\n\n 7 The only time period presumptively relevant is from the earliest verifiably known\n\n 8 appearance of the allegedly infringing content identified in Exhibit A (the \u201cEarliest Event Date\u201d)\n\n 9 through the date of the \u00a7512(h) subpoena to Cloudflare. Attempts to demand \u201call historical data,\u201d\n10 \u201csince account creation,\u201d or open-ended logs beyond this bounded window are presumptively\n\n11 disproportionate and will not be ordered absent a particularized showing and further order of this\n\n12 Court.\n\n13 4. DURATION\n\n14 4.1 Continuing Obligation.\n\n15 The confidentiality and use restrictions in this Order continue to apply after this \u00a7512(h)\n\n16 identification matter concludes, unless the Court modifies them.\n\n17 4.2 Stay Pending Review.\n\n18 Except for the minimal initial disclosure described in \u00a72.1, any compelled Expanded\n\n19 Production or use of Protected Information is automatically stayed during any motion for\n\n20 reconsideration, objection, appeal, or request for further relief. During any such stay, Protected\n\n21 Information shall be held solely by Doe\u2019s U.S.-admitted Outside Counsel of Record, and may not\n\n22 be disclosed to, or used by, the Subpoenaing Party or its counsel.\n\n23 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL\n\n24 5.1 Automatic AEO Status.\n\n25 All Protected Information, including Doe Identity Information and any Expanded\n\n26 Production the Court might later allow, is automatically designated \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n27 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\u2019 ONLY\u201d (\u201cAEO\u201d) at the moment of production. No lesser designation (for\n\n28 example, \u201cConfidential\u201d or \u201cOutside Counsel Only\u201d with corporate access) shall apply without\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 6 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 8 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 further order and sufficient showing of necessity by the party challenging the designation.\n\n 2 In the alternative: All Protected Information, including Doe Identity Information and any\n\n 3 Expanded Production the Court might later allow, is automatically designated \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d\n\n 4 at the moment of production, and may only be disclosed to: Subpoenaing Party\u2019s U.S.-admitted\n\n 5 Outside Counsel of Record, and up to two Shueisha Inc. management personnel, who review and\n\n 6 execute the attached Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound attached hereto as Exhibit B,\n\n 7 and who are disclosed to John Doe\u2019s U.S.-admitted Counsel of Record at least 48 hours prior to any\n\n 8 such disclosure.\n\n 9 5.2 Filing and Marking.\n10 Any Protected Information must be filed, if at all, under seal, in compliance with Fed. R.\n\n11 Civ. P. 5.2 and Civil L.R. 79-5. Public versions shall redact Doe Identity Information and any other\n\n12 Protected Information. The public docket shall continue to refer to Doe as \u201cJohn Doe.\u201d\n\n13 5.3 Inadvertent Omissions.\n\n14 If any Protected Information is produced without an AEO legend or similar marking, it is\n\n15 still Protected Information and subject to this Order. The producing Service Provider or Doe\u2019s\n\n16 counsel may correct the designation, and all Receiving Parties must treat it as AEO from the outset.\n\n17 6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS\n\n18 6.1 No Downgrade of Doe Identity Information Absent Further Order.\n\n19 Because the Court has ordered that Doe\u2019s identity may not be used or disclosed for any\n\n20 purpose unrelated to the Subpoena, Doe Identity Information and any Protected Information\n\n21 revealing Doe\u2019s identity may not be downgraded from AEO (or otherwise disclosed beyond AEO\n\n22 recipients) without a further written order of this Court. The burden is entirely on the Party seeking\n\n23 broader dissemination.\n\n24 6.2 Meet and Confer.\n\n25 If a Party believes that some produced material is over-designated and does not actually\n\n26 reveal Doe Identity Information or other Protected Information, that Party shall notify John Doe\u2019s\n27 counsel via written notice. To avoid ambiguity as to whether a challenge has been made, the written\n\n28 notice must recite that the challenge to confidentiality is being made in accordance with this specific\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 7 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 9 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 paragraph of the Protective Order. The Parties shall attempt to resolve each challenge in good faith\n\n 2 and must begin the process by conferring directly (in voice-to-voice dialogue; other forms of\n\n 3 communication are not sufficient) within 14 days of the date of service of notice. If no agreement\n\n 4 is reached, the Party may move the Court to downgrade the confidentiality level of the particular\n\n 5 Doe Identity Information or other Protected Information. Until the Court rules, the material remains\n\n 6 at its current AEO designation.\n\n 7 6.3 Judicial Intervention.\n\n 8 If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court intervention, the parties shall follow\n\n 9 the Court\u2019s Standing Order in Civil Cases regarding Discovery and Discovery Motions. The parties\n10 may file a joint letter brief regarding retaining confidentiality within 21 days of the initial notice of\n\n11 challenge or within 14 days of the parties agreeing that the meet and confer process will not resolve\n\n12 their dispute, whichever is earlier. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court allows that a\n\n13 motion may be filed, any such motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration affirming\n\n14 that the movant has complied with the meet and confer requirements imposed in the preceding\n\n15 paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may elect to transfer the discovery matter to a Magistrate\n\n16 Judge.\n\n17 In addition, the parties may file a joint letter brief regarding a challenge to a confidentiality\n\n18 designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so, including a challenge to the designation\n\n19 of a deposition transcript or any portions thereof. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court\n\n20 allows that a motion may be filed, any motion brought pursuant to this provision must be\n\n21 accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and\n\n22 confer requirements imposed by the preceding paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may elect to\n\n23 refer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge.\n\n24 The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating\n\n25 Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose\n\n26 unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to sanctions.\n27 Unless the Designating Party has waived the confidentiality designation by failing to file a letter\n\n28 brief to retain confidentiality as described above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 8 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 10 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party\u2019s designation until\n\n 2 the court rules on the challenge.\n\n 3 7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL\n\n 4 7.1 AEO Recipients Only.\n\n 5 Protected Information may be disclosed only to: (a) the Court and its personnel; (b) Doe\u2019s\n\n 6 Outside Counsel of Record admitted in the United States and their necessary staff or experts who\n\n 7 sign an acknowledgment agreeing to be bound by this Order; and (c) if the Court so orders, the\n\n 8 Subpoenaing Party\u2019s Outside Counsel of Record admitted in the United States and their necessary\n\n 9 staff or experts who sign that same acknowledgment. No other person or entity, including in-house\n10 counsel, corporate officers, employees, foreign counsel, investigators, affiliates, vendors,\n\n11 contractors, industry associations, or any governmental authority, may receive Protected\n\n12 Information absent further written order of this Court.\n\n13 7.2 Storage and Security.\n\n14 Protected Information shall be stored and processed only in the United States, under\n\n15 encryption and tamper-evident access logs, on systems controlled by Outside Counsel of Record.\n\n16 No cross-border transfer, remote access from abroad, foreign backup, or foreign mirror is permitted\n\n17 absent prior order.\n\n18 7.3 Final Compliance Certification.\n\n19 Within 10 days after destruction is required under \u00a713.4 or \u00a713.5, the Subpoenaing Party\u2019s\n\n20 U.S.-admitted Outside Counsel of Record shall file under seal a single declaration, made pursuant\n\n21 to 28 U.S.C. \u00a71746, certifying that: (a) all Protected Information has been destroyed, except for\n\n22 court-sealed filings and the single archival copy permitted to Doe\u2019s counsel; (b) no Protected\n\n23 Information was disclosed outside AEO recipients authorized by this Order; (c) no cross-border\n\n24 transfer, storage, backup, or access occurred; and (d) no direct contact, demand, threat, request for\n\n25 payment, settlement approach, or other communication was made to John Doe except as expressly\n\n26 authorized by this Court for service of process under \u00a71.2(a).\n27 7.4 No Direct Contact or Service on Doe Without Leave.\n\n28 Protected Information may not be used to contact, demand from, or serve John Doe directly.\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 9 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 11 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 Service or notice to Doe shall proceed only through Doe\u2019s U.S.-admitted Outside Counsel of Record\n\n 2 unless this Court expressly authorizes direct service in a filed U.S. action.\n\n 3 8. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED PRODUCED ELSEWHERE\n\n 4 8.1 No Cross-Use.\n\n 5 Protected Information shall not be disclosed in, or used for, any other court, tribunal, agency,\n\n 6 law-enforcement inquiry, administrative office, foreign proceeding, or parallel dispute, nor used to\n\n 7 support any new subpoena, request, or demand to any third party, without prior written order from\n\n 8 this Court.\n\n 9 8.2 Notice.\n10 If any person in possession of Protected Information receives a subpoena, order, demand, or\n\n11 request from another forum seeking such material, that person must: (a) promptly notify Doe\u2019s\n\n12 Outside Counsel of Record, and provide a copy of the demand; (b) promptly provide the requester\n\n13 with a copy of this Order; and (c) cooperate in allowing Doe to seek protection from this Court\n\n14 before any disclosure. If this Court asserts protection, no disclosure shall occur unless and until this\n\n15 Court orders otherwise.\n\n16 9. A NON-PARTY\u2019S PROTECTED MATERIAL\n\n17 9.1 Service Providers.\n\n18 This Order applies to a Service Provider (Cloudflare) that produces information responsive\n\n19 to the \u00a7512(h) Subpoena. Any Doe Identity Information or other Protected Information produced\n\n20 by such a Service Provider shall automatically be treated as AEO under this Order. Nothing prevents\n\n21 a Service Provider from requesting additional or greater protections.\n\n22 10. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE\n\n23 If any Receiving Party (including any Outside Counsel of Record, staff, or expert) learns\n\n24 that Protected Information has been disclosed, accessed, copied, exported, transmitted, stored, or\n\n25 otherwise used in violation of this Order, that Party must immediately: (a) notify Doe\u2019s Outside\n\n26 Counsel of Record, within 24 hours of discovery of the unauthorized use or disclosure; (b) take all\n27 reasonable steps to retrieve and sequester the material and prevent further dissemination; (c) inform\n\n28 every person who received the material that it is subject to this Order and must be kept confidential\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 10 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 12 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 and destroyed; and (d) provide a sworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. \u00a71746 describing the nature\n\n 2 and scope of the disclosure and the remedial steps taken.\n\n 3 11. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION / CLAWBACK\n\n 4 If privileged, work-product, or otherwise legally protected material is inadvertently\n\n 5 produced, Fed. R. Evid. 502 applies. The producing Party or Service Provider may claw back such\n\n 6 material by written notice. All Receiving Parties must promptly return or destroy the inadvertently\n\n 7 produced material. Such inadvertent production or disclosure does not constitute waiver of any\n\n 8 applicable privilege.\n\n 9 Nothing in this Order waives any objection to scope, burden, jurisdiction, venue, personal\n10 jurisdiction, service, admissibility, proportionality, or the merits.\n\n11 12. MISCELLANEOUS\n\n12 12.1 Filing Under Seal.\n\n13 Protected Information, including Doe Identity Information and any Expanded Production,\n\n14 may not be filed publicly. Any filing that would reveal Protected Information or Doe Identity\n\n15 Information must be submitted under seal and must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and Civil L.R.\n\n16 79-5. Public versions shall redact Doe\u2019s identity, and the public docket shall continue to refer to\n\n17 Doe as \u201cJohn Doe.\u201d\n\n18 12.2 Cost Allocation / No Duty To Create New Data.\n\n19 The Service Provider shall not be required to generate new reports, run new scripts, or\n\n20 compile new datasets beyond what exists in the ordinary course of business. Reasonable production\n\n21 costs may be shifted to the Subpoenaing Party, subject to fee motion if disputed.\n\n22 12.3 Right to Further Relief.\n\n23 Nothing in this Order limits the right of any person to seek modification of this Order from\n\n24 the Court.\n\n25 12.4 Court Control.\n\n26 Only this Court may modify, relax, or release any provision of this Order. Cross-border\n27 transmission, derivative use, direct contact with Doe, or any other deviation requires a written order\n\n28 from this Court.\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 11 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 13 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 13. FINAL DISPOSITION\n\n 2 13.1 Initial Production Path.\n\n 3 The Service Provider (Cloudflare) may release responsive Doe Identity Information, or\n\n 4 Expanded Production if so ordered by this Court, directly to Doe\u2019s and Subpoenaing Party\u2019s Outside\n\n 5 Counsel of Record only, in a secure manner, with a designation of \u201cCONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n\n 6 ATTORNEY\u2019S EYES\u2019 ONLY \u2013 SUBJECT TO COURT ORDER.\u201d Under no circumstances shall\n\n 7 Doe Identity Information or any other Protected Information be delivered to any client\n\n 8 representative, to any foreign counsel or agent, or to any investigator, vendor, affiliate, or industry\n\n 9 association, without further written order of this Court.\n10 13.2 Certification and Audit.\n\n11 The Final Compliance Certification required by \u00a77.3 shall be filed after destruction under\n\n12 \u00a713.4 or \u00a713.5. Failure to timely certify, or evidence of non-compliance, may result in immediate\n\n13 sequestration or destruction of Protected Information and in sanctions.\n\n14 13.3 No Direct Use for Service or Contact.\n\n15 As provided in \u00a71.2(a) and \u00a77.4, production of Doe Identity Information under this Order\n\n16 does not itself authorize any direct service, demand, or other direct contact with Doe. Service on\n\n17 Doe shall proceed, if at all, through Doe\u2019s U.S.-admitted Outside Counsel of Record unless this\n\n18 Court orders otherwise in a filed U.S. action.\n\n19 13.4 End-of-Case Destruction.\n\n20 Within 30 days after the later of (i) final resolution of this \u00a7512(h) identification matter,\n\n21 including any appeals, and (ii) the conclusion or expiration of any U.S. copyright infringement\n\n22 action actually filed by the Subpoenaing Party against Doe and based solely on the Doe-Linked\n\n23 URLs in Exhibit A, each person in possession of Protected Information shall destroy all Protected\n\n24 Information and all copies, summaries, notes, metadata, and access logs that would reveal Doe\u2019s\n\n25 identity. One archival copy may be retained by Doe\u2019s U.S.-admitted Outside Counsel of Record\n\n26 only, and the Court may retain any sealed filings, for record-keeping and enforcement purposes.\n27 13.5 No-Suit Reversion.\n\n28 If, within 180 days after any disclosure of Doe Identity Information under this Order, the\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 12 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 14 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 Subpoenaing Party has not filed a substantive U.S. copyright infringement complaint against Doe\n\n 2 based solely on the Doe-Linked URLs in Exhibit A, then all Protected Information (except the single\n\n 3 archival copy permitted to Doe\u2019s counsel and any sealed copy held by the Court) shall be destroyed\n\n 4 immediately. The Subpoenaing Party\u2019s Outside Counsel of Record shall file under seal a\n\n 5 certification under 28 U.S.C. \u00a71746 confirming destruction and confirming continued compliance\n\n 6 with this Order.\n\n 7\n\n 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD:\n\n 9 DATED: ___________, 2025 KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP\n10\n\n11 By:\n Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107\n12\n Attorneys for John Doe\n13\n\n14 DATED: _____________, 2025 GAMMA LAW, P.C.\n15\n s/\n16 Marco Martemucci\n17\n\n18\n\n19 PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO\n20 ORDERED.\n21\n\n22 DATED: __________________________\n23\n\n24 ________________________________________\n25 Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge\n26 Northern District of California\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 13 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 15 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 EXHIBIT A\n\n 2 John Doe URLs\n\n 3 Doe-Linked URLs referenced in Shueisha\u2019s DMCA takedown notice and in the \u00a7512(h)\n\n 4 subpoena to Cloudflare, consisting solely of the URL(s) actually associated with John Doe\u2019s\n\n 5 Cloudflare account:\n\n 6\n\n 7 https://www.mangajikan.com/chapter-441853.html\n\n 8 https://jpoo.alammanga.com/JP00/120647/3nfi22cjai.jpg.\n\n 9\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 14 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-1 Filed 11/13/25 Page 16 of 16\n\n\n\n 1 EXHIBIT B\n\n 2 Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\n\n 3 I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of _________________ [print or\n\n 4 type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and understand\n\n 5 the Stipulated Protective Order that was issued by the United States District Court for the Northern\n\n 6 District of California on [date] in the case of ___________ [insert formal name of the case and\n\n 7 the number and initials assigned to it by the court]. I agree to comply with and to be bound by\n\n 8 all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge that failure to so\n\n 9 comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise\n10 that I will not disclose in any manner any information or item that is subject to this Stipulated\n\n11 Protective Order to any person or entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order.\n\n12 I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern\n\n13 District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order, even\n\n14 if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action.\n\n15 I hereby appoint __________________________ [print or type full name] of\n\n16 _______________________________________ [print or type full address and telephone number]\n\n17 as my California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any proceedings\n\n18 related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order.\n\n19\n\n20 Date: ______________________________________\n\n21 City and State where sworn and signed: _________________________________\n\n22\n\n23 Printed name: _______________________________\n\n24\n\n25 Signature: __________________________________\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 15 SUBPOENA\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-11-26T21:46:38.490200-08:00","document_number":"16","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035026430492","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order Doe's Proposed Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458814253/","id":458814253,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/16/2/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-14T11:44:50.191666-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-27T03:10:23.833293-08:00","sha1":"9b660cfec3d734645d2f3403d53f14d8cb112ee9","page_count":12,"file_size":246221,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.16.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.16.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 12\n\n\n GAMMA LAW, P.C.\n 1 Duy Thai (SB 157345)\n 2 Marco Martemucci (SBN 255054)\n One Sansome Street, Suite 1400\n 3 San Francisco, California 94104\n Tel.: 415.901.0510\n 4 Fax: 415.901.0512\n dthai@gammalaw.com\n 5\n mmartemucci@gammalaw.com\n 6 Attorneys for Shueisha Inc.\n 7 KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP\n 8 Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. 222187)\n Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107 (Bar No. 343520)\n 9 548 Market St. #85399\n San Francisco, CA 94104\n10 Telephone: (415) 955-1155\n Facsimile: (415) 955-1158\n11\n jeff@kr.law\n12 leah@kr.law\n\n13 Attorneys for John Doe\n\n14\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n15\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n16 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION\n\n17 In re 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h) Subpoena to Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n18 CLOUDFLARE, INC.\n [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER\n19\n RE: DMCA SUBPOENA (17 U.S.C.\n20 \u00a7512(h))\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT\n\n 2 This matter arises from a subpoena issued pursuant to 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h) to Cloudflare, Inc.,\n\n 3 a U.S.-based service provider, at the request of Shueisha Inc., a non-U.S. rights holder (the \u201cDMCA\n\n 4 Subpoena\u201d). The DMCA Subpoena seeks identifying information for the individual associated with\n\n 5 the specific URL(s) identified in Shueisha\u2019s DMCA takedown notice and listed in Exhibit A hereto,\n\n 6 which Shueisha attributes to \u201cJohn Doe.\u201d\n\n 7 There is currently no civil infringement lawsuit between Shueisha and John Doe in any\n\n 8 United States court. This proceeding is a pre-suit identification request under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h). It\n\n 9 is not ordinary discovery in an active civil action.\n\n10 This Protective Order prohibits the pre-litigation disclosure and use of John Doe\u2019s identity\n\n11 for any purpose unrelated to Shueisha\u2019s enforcement of copyrights against John Doe.\n\n12 Any information sufficient to identify John Doe (\u201cDoe Identity Information,\u201d as defined in\n\n13 \u00a72.1 below) shall be treated as confidential, shall not be publicly disclosed except as defined in \u00a77.1\n\n14 below , and shall be designated CONFIDENTIAL under this Protective Order.\n\n15 Good cause exists under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512(h)(2)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n16 45 to impose limits on the pre-litigation use and disclosure of Doe Identity Information to prevent\n\n17 misuse.\n\n18 FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:\n\n19 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS\n\n20 1.1 Sole Purpose of Use.\n\n21 Protected Information, including any Doe Identity Information as defined in \u00a72.1, may be\n\n22 produced to Shueisha Inc. in response to the DMCA Subpoena with a confidentiality designation.\n\n23 Such information may be disclosed only to Shueisha Inc. and its Counsel and John Doe and its\n\n24 Counsel and thereafter by Shueisha Inc or its Counsel in court filings arising from Shueisha\u2019s\n\n25 potential copyright claims relating to the infringement alleged in Shueisha\u2019s DMCA takedown\n\n26 notice, attached as Exhibit Aat which point it will cease to be deemed Protected Information.\n\n27 1.2 Prohibited Uses.\n\n28 Absent further written order of this Court, no Party, counsel, agent, or other person may\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 1 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 disclose or use any Protected Information, including any Doe Identity Information, for any pre-\n\n 2 litigation purpose other than the limited purpose set forth in \u00a71.1. Prohibited uses include, without\n\n 3 limitation:\n\n 4 (a) Initiating or attempting any direct contact with John Doe, including by email, phone,\n\n 5 social media, physical mail, or in-person approaches, aside from service of legal process when John\n\n 6 Doe has identified attorney representation. Direct contact is permitted for service of process in a\n\n 7 filed copyright infringement action, at which point the Doe Identity Information will no longer be\n\n 8 deemed Protected Information.\n\n 9 (b) Any pre-litigation disclosure of Protected Information, including Doe Identity\n\n10 Information, to any person or entity other than (i) this Court, (ii) Shueisha employees, staff agents\n\n11 or representatives working on or responsible for enforcement of Shueisha\u2019s managed copyright\n\n12 portfolio, or (iii) outside counsel and their necessary staff or experts who have executed the\n\n13 acknowledgment required by \u00a77 and are bound by this Order.\n\n14 1.3 No Merits Finding.\n\n15 This Order governs only the \u00a7512(h) identification process. It makes no findings and permits\n16 no inference regarding infringement, liability, willfulness, damages, jurisdiction, venue, or any\n17 other merits issue.\n18 2. DEFINITIONS\n19 2.1 \u201cDoe Identity Information.\u201d\n20 \u201cDoe Identity Information\u201d means information sufficient to identify John Doe, including\n\n21 Doe\u2019s legal name..\n\n22 2.2 \u201cProtected Information.\u201d\n\n23 \u201cProtected Information\u201d means Doe Identity Information and any other sensitive private\n\n24 information belonging to John Doe that, if publicly disclosed, would cause harm directly or\n\n25 indirectly to Doe, including sensitive financial information, full credit card numbers, social security\n\n26 numbers, etc.\n\n27 2.3 \u201cDoe-Linked URLs.\u201d\n\n28 \u201cDoe-Linked URLs\u201d means the URL(s) identified in Exhibit A that (i) appear in Shueisha\u2019s\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 2 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 4 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 DMCA takedown notice, D.E. 1-3, (ii) are actually associated with Doe\u2019s Cloudflare account or\n\n 2 zone (for example, two paths or mirrors of the same page) and (iii) other domains, mirrors,\n\n 3 subdomains, historic content, or affiliated sites that may be identified by Cloudflare, Inc in their\n\n 4 production in response to the DMCA Subpeona.\n\n 5 2.4 \u201cSubpoenaing Party.\u201d\n\n 6 \u201cSubpoenaing Party\u201d means the applicant for the \u00a7512(h) subpoena (Shueisha Inc.) and its\n\n 7 Outside Counsel.\n\n 8 2.5 \u201cService Provider.\u201d\n\n 9 \u201cService Provider\u201d means any non-party responding to the \u00a7512(h) subpoena with\n\n10 information, including Cloudflare, Inc.\n\n11 2.6 \u201cOutside Counsel.\u201d\n\n12 \u201cOutside Counsel\u201d means counsel admitted to practice in the United States who have\n13 appeared or will appear in this matter. \u201cOutside Counsel\u201d also includes in-house counsel, corporate\n14 employees, foreign counsel, investigators, and affiliates of the Subpoenaing Party.\n15 2.7 \u201cUnrelated Purpose.\u201d\n16 \u201cUnrelated Purpose\u201d means any purpose other than the purpose described in \u00a71.1. Without\n17 limitation, \u201cUnrelated Purpose\u201d includes unrelated publicity, harassment, embarrassment,\n18 intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious business interference, and intentional harm to\n19 John Doe unrelated to enforcement of Shueisha\u2019s managed copyrights.\n20 3. SCOPE\n\n21 3.1 Coverage.\n\n22 The protections in this Order cover: (a) Protected Information itself; (b) any copies, excerpts,\n\n23 summaries, notes, metadata, audit logs, or compilations that reveal Protected Information; and (c)\n\n24 any testimony, presentations, communications, or filings that would reveal Protected Information.\n\n25 3.2 Exclusions.\n\n26 This Order does not restrict information that is (i) already lawfully in the public domain\n\n27 prior to any production under this Order, or (ii) later becomes public through no breach of this\n\n28 Order.\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 3 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 5 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 4. DURATION\n\n 2 4.1 Continuing Obligation.\n\n 3 The confidentiality and use restrictions in this Order continue to apply after this \u00a7512(h)\n\n 4 identification matter concludes, for a period of two years, unless the Court modifies them or until\n\n 5 such time as Shueisha files a copyright infringement lawsuit against John Doe for infringement\n\n 6 identified in or related to the DMCA Takedown Notice.\n\n 7 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL\n\n 8 5.1 Designated Confidential Status.\n\n 9 All Protected Information, including Doe Identity Information shall be designated as\n\n10 \u201cConfidential\u201d by Cloudflare, Inc. at the moment of production. No higher designation (for\n\n11 example, \u201cHighly Confidential\u201d \u201cOutside Counsel Only\u201d or \u201cAttorney\u2019s Eyes Only\u201d) may be\n\n12 applied without further order and sufficient showing of necessity by the party seeking to apply the\n\n13 designation.\n\n14 5.2 Filing and Marking.\n\n15 In the interest of public access to litigation information, Shueisha may file Doe Identity\n16 Information publicly in a copyright enforcement lawsuit against Doe, at which point, the Doe\n17 Identity information will no longer be deemed Confidential.\n18 5.3 Inadvertent Omissions.\n19 If any Protected Information is produced without a Confidential designation or similar\n20 marking, it is still Protected Information and subject to this Order. The producing Service Provider\n\n21 or Doe\u2019s counsel may correct the designation, and all Receiving Parties must treat it as Confidential\n\n22 upon learning of the designation.\n\n23 6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS\n\n24 6.1 Meet and Confer.\n\n25 If a Party believes that some produced material is over-designated and does not actually\n\n26 reveal Doe Identity Information or other Protected Information, that Party shall notify John Doe\u2019s\n\n27 counsel via written or emailed notice. To avoid ambiguity as to whether a challenge has been made,\n\n28 the written notice must recite that the challenge to confidentiality is being made in accordance with\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 4 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 6 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 this specific paragraph of the Protective Order. The Parties shall attempt to resolve each challenge\n\n 2 in good faith and must begin the process by conferring directly (in voice-to-voice dialogue; other\n\n 3 forms of communication are not sufficient) within 14 days of the date of service of notice. If no\n\n 4 agreement is reached, the Party may move the Court to remove the confidentiality designation of\n\n 5 the particular Doe Identity Information or other Protected Information. Until the Court rules, the\n\n 6 material remains at its current Confidential designation.\n\n 7 6.3 Judicial Intervention.\n\n 8 If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court intervention, the parties shall follow\n\n 9 the Court\u2019s Standing Order in Civil Cases regarding Discovery and Discovery Motions. The parties\n\n10 may file a joint letter brief regarding retaining confidentiality within 21 days of the initial notice of\n\n11 challenge or within 14 days of the parties agreeing that the meet and confer process will not resolve\n\n12 their dispute, whichever is earlier. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court allows that a\n\n13 motion may be filed, any such motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration affirming\n\n14 that the movant has complied with the meet and confer requirements imposed in the preceding\n\n15 paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may elect to transfer the discovery matter to a Magistrate\n\n16 Judge.\n\n17 In addition, the parties may file a joint letter brief regarding a challenge to a confidentiality\n\n18 designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so, including a challenge to the designation\n\n19 of a deposition transcript or any portions thereof. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court\n\n20 allows that a motion may be filed, any motion brought pursuant to this provision must be\n\n21 accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and\n\n22 confer requirements imposed by the preceding paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may elect to\n\n23 refer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge.\n\n24 The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating\n\n25 Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose\n\n26 unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to sanctions.\n\n27 Unless the Designating Party has waived the confidentiality designation by failing to file a letter\n\n28 brief to retain confidentiality as described above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 5 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 7 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party\u2019s designation until\n\n 2 the court rules on the challenge.\n\n 3 7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL\n\n 4 7.1 Confidential Recipients Only.\n\n 5 Protected Information may be disclosed only to: (a) the Court and its personnel; (b) Doe\u2019s\n\n 6 Outside Counsel; and (c) the Subpoenaing Party, its Outside Counsel and agents. No other person\n\n 7 or entity, may receive Protected Information absent further written order of this Court.\n\n 8 7.2 Final Compliance Certification.\n\n 9 Within 10 days after destruction is required under \u00a713.4 or \u00a713.5, the Subpoenaing Party\u2019s\n\n10 U.S.-admitted Outside Counsel of Record shall file a single declaration, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n\n11 \u00a71746, certifying that: (a) all Protected Information has been destroyed, except for court-sealed\n\n12 filings and the single archival copy permitted to Doe\u2019s counsel; (b) no Protected Information was\n\n13 disclosed outside Confidential recipients authorized by this Order; and (c) no direct contact,\n\n14 demand, threat, request for payment, settlement approach, or other communication was made to\n\n15 John Doe except through Doe\u2019s counsel, if represented, or as expressly authorized by this Court for\n\n16 service of process under \u00a71.2(a).\n\n17 8. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED PRODUCED ELSEWHERE\n\n18 8.1 Cross-Use Permitted.\n19 Protected Information may be disclosed in, or used for, any other court, tribunal, agency,\n20 law-enforcement inquiry, administrative office, foreign proceeding, or parallel dispute, or used to\n\n21 support any new subpoena, request, or demand to any third party, without prior written order from\n\n22 this Court, provided Doe\u2019s Private Information is redacted or submitted under seal and such use is\n\n23 related to Subpoenaing Party\u2019s copyright enforcement efforts.\n\n24 8.2 Notice.\n\n25 If any person in possession of Protected Information receives a subpoena, order, demand, or\n\n26 request from another forum seeking such material, that person must: (a) promptly notify Doe\u2019s\n\n27 Outside Counsel of Record, and provide a copy of the demand; (b) promptly provide the requester\n\n28 with a copy of this Order; and (c) cooperate in allowing Doe to seek protection from this Court\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 6 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 8 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 before any disclosure. If this Court asserts protection, no disclosure shall occur unless and until this\n\n 2 Court orders otherwise.\n\n 3 9. A NON-PARTY\u2019S PROTECTED MATERIAL\n\n 4 9.1 Service Providers.\n\n 5 This Order applies to a Service Provider (Cloudflare) that produces information responsive\n\n 6 to the \u00a7512(h) Subpoena. Any Doe Identity Information or other Protected Information produced\n\n 7 by such a Service Provider may be designated as Confidential under this Order. Nothing prevents a\n\n 8 Service Provider from producing material that does not contain Doe Identity Information without a\n\n 9 confidentiality designation.\n\n10 10. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE\n\n11 If any Receiving Party learns that Protected Information has been disclosed, accessed,\n12 copied, exported, transmitted, stored, or otherwise used in violation of this Order, that Party must\n13 immediately: (a) notify Doe\u2019s Outside Counsel of Record, within 48 hours of discovery of the\n14 unauthorized use or disclosure; (b) take all reasonable steps to retrieve and sequester the material\n15 and prevent further dissemination; (c) inform every person who received the material that it is\n16 subject to this Order and must be kept confidential and destroyed; and (d) provide a sworn\n17 declaration under 28 U.S.C. \u00a71746 describing the nature and scope of the disclosure and the\n18 remedial steps taken.\n19 11. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION / CLAWBACK\n20 If privileged, work-product, or otherwise legally protected material is inadvertently\n\n21 produced, Fed. R. Evid. 502 applies. The producing Party or Service Provider may claw back such\n\n22 material by written notice. All Receiving Parties must promptly return or destroy the inadvertently\n\n23 produced material. Such inadvertent production or disclosure does not constitute waiver of any\n\n24 applicable privilege.\n\n25 Nothing in this Order waives any objection to scope, burden, jurisdiction, venue, personal\n\n26 jurisdiction, service, admissibility, proportionality, or the merits.\n\n27 12. MISCELLANEOUS\n\n28 12.1 [REMOVED].\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 7 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 9 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 12.2 Cost Allocation / No Duty To Create New Data.\n\n 2 The Service Provider shall not be required to generate new reports, run new scripts, or\n\n 3 compile new datasets beyond what exists in the ordinary course of business. Reasonable production\n\n 4 costs may be shifted to the Subpoenaing Party, subject to fee motion if disputed.\n\n 5 12.3 Right to Further Relief.\n\n 6 Nothing in this Order limits the right of any person to seek modification of this Order from\n\n 7 the Court.\n\n 8 12.4 Court Control.\n\n 9 This Court may modify, relax, or release any provision of this Order. The Parties may also\n\n10 mutually agree in writing to designate or de-designate documents as Confidential.\n\n11 13. FINAL DISPOSITION\n\n12 13.1 Initial Production Path.\n13 The Service Provider (Cloudflare) may release responsive Doe Identity Information directly\n14 to Doe\u2019s and Subpoenaing Party\u2019s Outside Counsel of Record, in a secure manner, with a\n15 designation of \u201cCONFIDENTIAL.\u201d Documents lacking any Doe Identity Information need not bear\n16 any confidentiality designation.\n17 13.2 Certification and Audit.\n18 The Final Compliance Certification required by \u00a77.3 shall be filed after destruction under\n19 \u00a713.4 or \u00a713.4. Failure to timely certify, or evidence of non-compliance, may result in immediate\n20 sequestration or destruction of Protected Information.\n\n21 13.3 End-of-Case Destruction.\n\n22 Within two years after the final resolution of this \u00a7512(h) identification matter, including\n\n23 any appeals, if there has been no copyright infringement action actually filed by the Subpoenaing\n\n24 Party against Doe related to the Doe-Linked URLs in Exhibit A, each person in possession of\n\n25 Protected Information shall destroy all Protected Information and all copies, summaries, notes,\n\n26 metadata, and access logs that would reveal Doe\u2019s identity. Archival copies may be retained by\n\n27 Doe\u2019s Outside Counsel of Record, and the Court may retain any sealed filings, for record-keeping\n\n28 and enforcement purposes.\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 8 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 10 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD:\n\n 2 DATED: ___________, 2025 KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP\n\n 3\n\n 4 By:\n Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107\n 5\n Attorneys for John Doe\n 6\n\n 7 DATED: _____________, 2025 GAMMA LAW, P.C.\n\n 8\n s/\n 9 Marco Martemucci\n\n10 Attorneys for Shueisha Inc.\n\n11 PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO\n\n12 ORDERED.\n\n13 DATED: __________________________\n\n14\n\n15 ________________________________________\n\n16 Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge\n\n17 Northern District of California\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 9 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 11 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 EXHIBIT A\n\n 2 John Doe URLs\n\n 3 Doe-Linked URLs referenced in Shueisha\u2019s DMCA takedown notice and in the \u00a7512(h)\n\n 4 subpoena to Cloudflare, consisting of the URL(s) associated with John Doe\u2019s Cloudflare account:\n\n 5\n\n 6 https://www.mangajikan.com/chapter-441853.html\n\n 7 https://jpoo.alammanga.com/JP00/120647/3nfi22cjai.jpg.\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 10 SUBPOENA\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 16-2 Filed 11/13/25 Page 12 of 12\n\n\n\n 1 EXHIBIT B\n\n 2 Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\n\n 3 I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of _________________ [print or\n\n 4 type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and understand\n\n 5 the Stipulated Protective Order that was issued by the United States District Court for the Northern\n\n 6 District of California on [date] in the case of ___________ [insert formal name of the case and\n\n 7 the number and initials assigned to it by the court]. I agree to comply with and to be bound by\n\n 8 all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge that failure to so\n\n 9 comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise\n\n10 that I will not disclose in any manner any information or item that is subject to this Stipulated\n\n11 Protective Order to any person or entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order.\n\n12 I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern\n\n13 District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order, even\n\n14 if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action.\n\n15 I hereby appoint __________________________ [print or type full name] of\n\n16 _______________________________________ [print or type full address and telephone number]\n\n17 as my California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any proceedings\n\n18 related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order.\n\n19\n\n20 Date: ______________________________________\n\n21 City and State where sworn and signed: _________________________________\n\n22\n\n23 Printed name: _______________________________\n\n24\n\n25 Signature: __________________________________\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR [PROP] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DMCA\n 11 SUBPOENA\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-11-26T21:46:11.929492-08:00","document_number":"16","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035026430493","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order Shueisha's Proposed Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-13T15:33:23.856791-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.289091-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-13","time_filed":"15:14:54","entry_number":16,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":46,"description":"Joint Discovery Letter Brief re: Protective Order [pursuant to D.E. 14] filed by John Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Doe's Proposed Protective Order, # 2 Proposed Order Shueisha's Proposed Protective Order)(Vulic, Leah) (Filed on 11/13/2025) (Entered: 11/13/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/441265649/","id":441265649,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/455842514/","id":455842514,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/15/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-10-17T12:06:02.403390-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.265367-08:00","sha1":"a38ed36ac9ea5722471d2321cf43fb5d0af63133","page_count":2,"file_size":93227,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.15.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.15.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/17/25 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n 1 KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP\n Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. 222187)\n 2 Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107 (Bar No. 343520)\n 548 Market St. #85399\n 3 San Francisco, CA 94104\n 4 Telephone: (415) 955-1155\n Facsimile: (415) 955-1158\n 5 jeff@kr.law\n leah@kr.law\n 6\n Attorneys for John Doe\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n10\n\n11\n\n12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n13\n In re DMCA Subpoena to CLOUDFLARE, Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n14 INC.\n15\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/17/25 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 1\n\n 2 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to\n this action. My business address is 548 Market Street #85399, San Francisco, California, 94104.\n 3\n I hereby certify that on October 16, 2025, I served:\n 4\n 1) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH\n 5\n\n 6 on the parties listed below as follows:\n\n 7 Cloudflare, Inc.\n legal@cloudflare.com\n 8 legalresponses@cloudflare.com\n avollmer@cloudflare.com\n 9 notices@trustandsafety.cloudflare.com\n10\n\n11 X BY EMAIL, to the address(es) listed above.\n\n12 X (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this\n court at whose direction the service was made.\n13\n DATED: October 17, 2025\n14\n\n15 Leah Rosa Vuli\u0107\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n Case No. 4:25-mc-80147-YGR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-11-26T21:45:21.022011-08:00","document_number":"15","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026326724","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Certificate/Proof of Service","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-17T12:06:02.302833-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.244724-08:00","date_filed":"2025-10-17","time_filed":"11:41:30","entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-10-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":43,"description":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Doe re 14 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Vulic, Leah) (Filed on 10/17/2025) (Entered: 10/17/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/440913714/","id":440913714,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/455482181/","id":455482181,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/12/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:31.353762-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.131895-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"12","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:31.323600-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.108025-08:00","date_filed":"2025-08-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":12,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-08-07.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER REASSIGNING CASE IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned using a proportionate, random and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse no longer assigned to the case. Counsel are instructed that all future filings shall bear the updated judicial initials immediately after the case number. Counsel are reminded to verify the location of the judge on the court website. All hearing and trial dates presently scheduled are vacated. However, existing briefing schedules for motions remain unchanged. Motions must be renoticed for hearing before the judge to whom the case has been reassigned, but the renoticing of the hearing does not affect the prior briefing schedule. Other deadlines such as those for ADR compliance and discovery cutoff also remain unchanged. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Mark B. Busby Clerk, United States District Court (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2025) (Entered: 08/07/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/440913713/","id":440913713,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/455482180/","id":455482180,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/11/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:31.274510-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.087061-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"11","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:31.224863-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.063983-08:00","date_filed":"2025-08-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":11,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-08-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now reassign this case to a District Judge because a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (shy, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2025) (Entered: 08/07/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/440913712/","id":440913712,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/455482179/","id":455482179,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/8/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:31.024472-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:26.956946-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"8","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.985480-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:26.932929-08:00","date_filed":"2025-07-22","time_filed":null,"entry_number":8,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-07-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination. All parties shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 8/5/2025. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (shy, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2025) (Entered: 07/22/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/440913711/","id":440913711,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/455482178/","id":455482178,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/5/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.815412-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:26.824056-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"5","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.774074-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:26.799016-08:00","date_filed":"2025-07-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":5,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-07-19.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance filed by Jeffrey Michael Rosenfeld on behalf of John Doe (Rosenfeld, Jeffrey) (Filed on 7/19/2025) (Entered: 07/19/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/440913710/","id":440913710,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/455482177/","id":455482177,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/4/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.734263-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:26.738721-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"4","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.700562-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:26.712697-08:00","date_filed":"2025-07-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":4,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-07-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance filed by Leah Rosa Vulic on behalf of John Doe (Vulic, Leah) (Filed on 7/19/2025) (Entered: 07/19/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/440913709/","id":440913709,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/455482176/","id":455482176,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/2/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.604876-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:26.632999-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"2","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-15T02:17:30.565522-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:26.608615-08:00","date_filed":"2025-06-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":2,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-06-10.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 6/24/2025. (pjf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/440883474/","id":440883474,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/455450971/","id":455450971,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/14/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-10-14T15:05:02.715606-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.220126-08:00","sha1":"6547d7a5baaa9301bc0ae8793f09ccfda9b42ca7","page_count":4,"file_size":182306,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.14.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.450953/gov.uscourts.cand.450953.14.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 14 Filed 10/14/25 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 5\n\n 6 Case No.: 4:25-mc-80147-YGR\n 7 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH\n IN RE DMCA SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE,\n 8\n INC.\n Re: Dkt. No. 6\n 9\n\n 10\n\n 11\nNorthern District of California\n\n\n\n\n 12 Petitioner Shueisha Inc. filed this action to obtain a takedown notice and subpoena under the\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7512 (\u201cDMCA\u201d) to Cloudflare, Inc. (Dkt. No. 1.)\n 14 Cloudflare is an Internet Service Provider (\u201cISP\u201d). Movant John Doe is a Cloudflare user. The\n 15 Court granted the subpoena. (Dkt. No. 3.) The parties submitted a joint discovery letter regarding\n 16 Doe\u2019s Motion to Quash in Part the Subpoena to Cloudflare. (Dkt. No. 6, \u201cLetter\u201d.) Doe asks the\n 17 Court to quash the subpoena entirely, or in the alternative, enter a protective order that limits the\n 18 disclosure and use to this case only in order to keep Doe\u2019s identity confidential. (Letter at 4.)\n 19 Because this is a dispositive motion and the parties did not consent to magistrate judge\n 20 jurisdiction, the Court considers the motion to quash de novo.\n 21 I. Background\n 22 On June 5, 2025, Shueisha\u2019s counsel sent a DMCA takedown notice to Cloudflare. (Dkt.\n 23 No. 1-3.) On June 10, 2025, Shueisha requested a DMCA subpoena to Cloudflare. (Dkt. No. 1.)\n 24 The clerk of the court issued the subpoena on June 12, 2025. (Dkt. No. 3.) Although the subpoena\n 25 seeks data for many URLs, only the first two URLs listed in the subpoena are at issue here.\n 26 Shueisha is a Japanese entertainment publisher of \u201cmangas.\u201d Shueisha alleges it holds\n 27 copyrights to mangas copied, published, displayed, or distributed without authorization on websites\n 28\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 14 Filed 10/14/25 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1 using Cloudflare\u2019s services.1 John Doe is a website administrator who owns the domains\n 2 mangajikan.com and alammanga.com.\n 3 Doe avers that Cloudflare provided only DNS and CDN services to his websites and that\n 4 therefore Cloudflare was unable to take down his website content. Shueisha contends that\n 5 Cloudflare stores content on its servers in the form of cached data to allow for faster loading of\n 6 sites.2\n 7 II. Relevant Law\n 8 The DMCA permits copyright owners to obtain subpoenas for information identifying\n 9 alleged copyright infringers independent of any pre-existing lawsuit. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(h). In this\n 10 context, \u201cthe subpoena is its own civil case, and the motion to quash is dispositive of the sole issue\n 11 presented in the case\u2014whether the subpoena should be enforced or not.\u201d In re DMCA Subpoena to\n 12 Reddit, Inc., 441 F.Supp.3d 875, 880 (N.D. Cal. 2020).\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 The DMCA provides an expedited procedure for copyright holders to subpoena ISPs for\n 14 information identifying an alleged copyright infringer. See 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(h). The statute creates\n 15 four safe harbors for ISPs to avoid liability for copyright infringement. Three of the four safe\n 16 harbors require ISPs to remove or disable access to infringing material upon notification from the\n 17 copyright holder\u2014referred to as the \u201cnotice and takedown process.\u201d3 The takedown notice must\n 18 substantially comply with the requirements in Section 512(c)(3)(A), which include \u201c(ii)\n 19 Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted\n 20 works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works\n 21 at that site;\u201d and \u201c(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the\n 22\n 1\n Dkt. No. 1-2, Declaration of Hiroyuki Nakajima in Support of Subpoena to Obtain the\n 23 Identity of a Cloudflare [sic], Inc. Customer Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(h) \u00b6 3.\n 24 2\n Dkt. No. 6-3, Declaration of Marco Martemucci in Support of Subpoena to Obtain the\n 25 Identity of a Clouflare [sic], Inc. Customer Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(h). (\u201cMartemucci Decl.\u201d)\n Ex. 1 \u00b6 2 (\u201cCache stores copies of frequently accessed content (such as images, videos, or\n 26 webpages) in geographically distributed data centers that are located closer to end users than origin\n 27\n servers, reducing server load and improving website performance.\u201d\n 3\n 28 See In re Subpoena of Internet Subscribers of Cox Commc'ns, LLC, 148 F.4th 1056, 1059\n (9th Cir. 2025) (\u201cCox\u201d); see also, Section 512(b)(2)(E), (c)(1)(C), (d)(3).\n\n 2\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 14 Filed 10/14/25 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1 material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the\n 2 law.\u201d\n 3 The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in In re Subpoena of Internet Subscribers of Cox\n 4 Commc'ns, LLC instructs. There, a district court had quashed a DMCA subpoena issued pursuant\n 5 to Section 512(h) because the ISP\u2019s relevant functions fell under Section 512(a). The Ninth Circuit\n 6 affirmed, finding: (1) a Section 512(h) subpoena may not issue to a Section 512(a) ISP; and (2) the\n 7 ISP Cox acted as a Section 512(a) service provider with respect to the infringement at issue. Cox at\n 8 1061, 1068. The court found Cox acted as a Section 512(a) service provider because, even if Cox\n 9 had the ability to provide storage, petitioner did not dispute that, \u201cwith respect to its role in the\n 10 alleged infringement,\u201d Cox acted \u201cmerely as a transmitter in all respects.\u201d Id. at n.6.\n 11 III. Analysis\n 12 Doe argues that Cloudflare acted as a Section 512(a) service provider with respect to the\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 infringement at issue, because it only provided DNS and CDN services to his websites. Shueisha\n 14 argues that Cloudflare is subject to a Section 512(h) subpoena because it stores content on its\n 15 servers in the form of cached data and was therefore acting as a Section 512(c) service provider.\n 16 The parties offer limited evidence to demonstrate what functions Cloudflare performed for\n 17 Doe\u2019s websites. Still, Shueisha has made a prima facie showing that Cloudflare stores content on\n 18 its servers in the form of cached data to support faster loading of sites. See Martemucci Decl.,\n 19 supra Ex. 1 \u00b6 2 (screenshots from the Cloudflare website describe how content is stored). Doe\n 20 offers no admissible evidence.4 Because there is no evidence to the contrary, the Court accepts\n 21 Shueisha\u2019s prima facie showing and concludes that Cloudflare functioned as a Section 512(c)\n 22 service provider.\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26 4\n Doe and Doe\u2019s attorney offer conclusory declarations. The Doe declaration is submitted\n 27\n anonymously. The Court will not consider such a declaration. See Doe v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist.,\n 2017 WL 797152, at *9 (2017) (\u201cWithout any record whatsoever of a witness\u2019s identity or their\n 28 signature, a declarant cannot be held to their statements under \u2018penalty of perjury\u2019.\u201d)\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 4:25-mc-80147-YGR Document 14 Filed 10/14/25 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1 Doe also argues that Shueisha\u2019s takedown notice did not substantially comply with Section\n 2 512(c)(3)(A) because (1) it did not identify the copyrighted work claimed infringed; and (2) it did\n 3 not include a sufficient statement of a good faith belief the use was unauthorized.\n 4 The Court finds that Shueisha did identify the copyrighted work, which neither party\n 5 disputes appears on the identified webpage. (Dkt. No. 1-3 (\u201cShueisha Inc . . . [is] the author of the\n 6 copyrighted works identified under the column entitled \u201cOriginal Work\u201d in Exhibit A attached to\n 7 this notice\u201d) (emphasis added).) Shueisha also included a statement of good faith belief that the use\n 8 was unauthorized. (Dkt. No. 1-3 (\u201cShueisha has a good faith belief that the Infringing Work is not\n 9 authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.\u201d)) This statement is sufficient. See Lenz v.\n 10 Universal, 815 F.3d 1145, 1153 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Stebbins v. Rebolo, 2024 WL 4982985, at\n 11 *6 (N.D. Cal. 2024).\n 12 Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Quash.5 The parties are\n 14 ORDERED to, within thirty (30) days of this Order, meet and confer and submit a proposed\n 15 protective order to the Court that prohibits the disclosure and use of John Doe\u2019s identity for any\n 16 purpose unrelated to the purpose of the subpoena.\n 17 This terminates Docket No. 6.\n 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n 19 Date: October 14, 2025 _______________________________________\n YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS\n 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE\n 21\n\n 22\n\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n 5\n 28 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court\n finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument.\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-10-15T02:26:11.160248-07:00","document_number":"14","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026310464","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-14T15:05:02.480947-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.199502-08:00","date_filed":"2025-10-14","time_filed":"14:33:36","entry_number":14,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-10-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":41,"description":"ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Denying 6 Motion. Proposed Protective Order due by 11/13/2025. (eac, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2025) (Entered: 10/14/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/435626218/","id":435626218,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/450045156/","id":450045156,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70499555/13/shueisha-inc-v-dmca-subpoena-to-cloudflare-inc/","date_created":"2025-08-22T15:51:16.465992-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.174734-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"13","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026114560","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Statement of Recent Decision","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-08-22T15:51:16.416841-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-15T23:58:27.153841-08:00","date_filed":"2025-08-22","time_filed":"14:58:24","entry_number":13,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-08-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":38,"description":"STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d (In re Subpoena of Internet Subscribers of Cox Commc'ns, LLC (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2025)) filed byJohn Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Vulic, Leah) (Filed on 8/22/2025) (Entered: 08/22/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/434073771/","id":434073771,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/448447015/","id":448447015,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-08-07T16:06:09.078725-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-07T17:26:54.264917-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Case Assigned/Reassigned","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-08-07T16:06:09.065913-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-07T17:26:54.154565-07:00","date_filed":"2025-08-07","time_filed":"15:45:55","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-08-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/434064203/","id":434064203,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70499555/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/448436769/","id":448436769,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-08-07T14:35:13.159177-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-07T17:27:01.278496-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice of Impending Reassignment - Text Only","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-08-07T14:35:13.094627-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-07T17:27:01.188096-07:00","date_filed":"2025-08-07","time_filed":"14:26:39","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-08-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=70499555&page_size=40"}