Directv, Inc. v. Rodkey
| Citation | 369 F.Supp.2d 587 |
| Decision Date | 16 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 3:04-68J.,CIV.A. 3:04-68J. |
| Parties | DIRECTV, INC., Plaintiff, v. Joseph RODKEY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
This case comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (Document No. 5). In consideration of the Defendant's Motion, the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 10), the Court shall grant Defendant's motion in part and deny Defendant's motion in part for the following reasons.
Jurisdiction is proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on federal question jurisdiction. Specifically, the Plaintiff has brought claims pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., as amended by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 19841 (hereinafter the "Communications Act"), and the Electronic Communications Policy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., (hereinafter the "Wiretap Act"). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the Plaintiff's state law claim of Possession of Devices for Theft, 18 Pa.C.S. § 910,2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The Plaintiff is a "California-based company in the business of distributing satellite television broadcasts throughout the United States." (Document No. 4). Specifically, the Plaintiff's satellite programming "is received through the use of a fixed outdoor satellite dish [which] is designed to capture satellite signals." Id. The satellite dish is "connected by cable to an indoor satellite receiver which is then connected by cable to a television monitor." Id.
The satellite signals received by the satellite dish are "not intended to be usable without paying [the Plaintiff] a fee to use its television broadcast service." (Document No. 4). Thus, in order to prevent unauthorized reception and use of the Plaintiff's broadcast signals by individuals who have not paid for the Plaintiff's satellite broadcast service, the Plaintiff "uses encryption technology to digitally scramble the signal, making the signal unusable until it is unscrambled." Id. The component which unscrambles the signal is called a "[s]atellite [r]eceiver". Id. Each satellite receiver "contains a removable access card that manages the opening and closing of television channels offered by [the Plaintiff]". Id. The access card is electronically programmed by the Plaintiff to close or open specific television channels. Id.
The Plaintiff electronically directs the access card to "unscramble portions of the satellite signal" allowing paying customers of the Plaintiff's programming service to view selected "programs on their televisions and/or listen to certain high quality programs communicated by satellite." (Document No. 4). Thus, a customer pays to the Plaintiff a "subscription fee" tailored to the specific programming requested by the customer. Id. The fee reflects the "programming package" selected by the customer for which a customer receives a monthly service bill. Id. In addition, a customer can choose to purchase and to view programs offered on a "per-show or per-package basis". Id. In order to receive these "spontaneous" broadcasts, a customer orders a broadcast via his or her remote control, or a customer orders by placing a telephone call directly to the Plaintiff. Id. Each spontaneous purchase is recorded by the access card contained in the satellite receiver. Id.
The primary sources of revenue for the Plaintiff are the subscription fees and spontaneous purchases made by its customers. (Document No. 4). However, some individuals have been able to circumvent paying subscription fees and/or spontaneous purchases by employing the use of equipment and devices that "surreptitiously pirate [Plaintiff's] signals (collectively referred to as "Pirate Access Devices" "). Id. These Pirate Access Devices allow individuals access to the Plaintiff's programming without paying subscription fees to the Plaintiff. Id.
By conducting various investigations, the Plaintiff was able to "identify several businesses that acted as warehouses and forwarding entities for many Internet-based companies that manufactured and/or sold" the Pirate Access Devices. (Document No. 10). Based upon these investigations, the Plaintiff "executed Civil Writs of Seizure on several of these clearing houses." Id. For example, the Plaintiff executed such writs on or about January 28, 2002 and January 16, 2003 through which the Plaintiff obtained documents regarding the Defendant in the case sub judice. Id.
On or about January 28, 2002, the Plaintiff "executed a writ of seizure" on "Michael Worley and EQ Stuff, Inc.," (hereinafter "EQ Stuff"). (Document No. 4). During the execution of this writ, the Plaintiff was able to obtain business records of EQ Stuff which revealed an "ongoing illegitimate enterprise... focused on distributing electronic devices primarily designed for the surreptitious interception of satellite communications" broadcast by the Plaintiff. Id. Specifically, upon information gathered during this raid, it was discovered by the Plaintiff that the Defendant "purchased four (4) `EQ Bootloaders' from EQ Stuff" on or about May 4, 2001. Id.
Similarly, on or about January 16, 2003, "pursuant to an order of the Montreal Superior Court in Quebec, Canada," the Plaintiff "executed a civil seizure upon a business named `Easybuy 2000'" (hereinafter "Easybuy"). (Document No. 4). During the course of this raid on Easybuy's business, the Plaintiff obtained Easybuy's business records, which included customer lists of those who purchased Pirate Access Devices. Id. Specifically, the business records revealed "orders, invoices, electronic communications, shipping documentation, purchase receipts, [and] credit card receipts" evidencing an ongoing illegal enterprise conducted by Easybuy. Id. Furthermore, it was discovered by the Plaintiff that the Defendant "purchased one (1) `SAT-HU Sureshot' from Easybuy 2000" on or about December 12, 2002. Id. The Plaintiff also observed during this raid that although Easybuy was physically located in Montreal, Canada, "due to the expansive reach of internet sales," Easybuy was able to conduct a nationwide and cross-country sales effort within the United States aimed at distributing "electronic devices primarily designed for the surreptitious interception of satellite communications broadcast" by the Plaintiff.3 Id.
Subsequent to the execution of the above-referenced writs, the Plaintiff was able to obtain various documents identifying numerous individuals, including the Defendant, who allegedly received and/or transmitted unauthorized Satellite Programming. (Document No. 10). Thereafter, on April 1, 2004, the Plaintiff filed the above-captioned civil action against the Defendant. (Document No. 1). Approximately, two months later, on June 4, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Document No. 4).
In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff added allegations regarding the purchase, by the Defendant, of "four (4) `EQ Bootloaders' [from] EQ Stuff on May 4, 2001", and the Amended Complaint removed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2512 which was included in the original Complaint. (Document Nos. 4 & 10). Consequently, the Amended Complaint includes the following charges: Count I Damages for Violations of Cable Communications Policy Act (47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)) (alleging that the Defendant "effected unauthorized interception and receipt of Satellite Programming through the use of illegal decoding devices, or by manipulation of the satellite system authorized to carry the Satellite Programming where Defendant is located..."); Count II Damages for Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (); Count III Damages for Willful Assembly or Modification of Devices or Equipment (47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4)) (alleging that the Defendant "knowingly, manufactured, assembled, or modified an electronic, mechanical or other device or equipment knowing or having reason to know, that the device or equipment is used primarily to facilitate the unauthorized decryption of Satellite Programming..."); and Count IV Possession of Devices for Theft in Violation of Pennsylvania Consolidation Statutes (18 Pa.C.S. § 910)(alleging that the Defendant "knowingly possessed, used or assembled an unlawful telecommunication device that could be used for commission of a theft of DIRECTV's telecommunication service ..."). (Document No. 4).
On July 15, 2004, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment (Document No. 5), stating that the Plaintiff's claims regarding the business records obtained from EQ Stuff on January 28, 2002 are barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitation.4 Id.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a statute of limitations defense must be raised in the answer since Rule 12(b) generally does not permit such a defense to be raised by motion. Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 134-35 (3d Cir.2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 826, 124 S.Ct. 48, 157 L.Ed.2d 49 (2003). However, as our Court of Appeals explained in Robinson, "the law of this circuit (the so-called `Third Circuit Rule') permits a limitations defense to be raised by a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), but only if the time alleged in the statement of a claim shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute of limitations." Id. at 135. Yet, "[i]f the bar is not apparent on the face of the complaint, then it may not afford the basis for a dismissal of the complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petri v. Erie Cnty. Children & Youth, Case No. 1:19-cv-00243 (Erie)
...Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 341 (3d Cir. 1989); Clark v. Sherman, No. CA 08-95, 2009 WL 57085 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2009); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rodkey, 369 F. Supp. 2d 587 (W.D. Pa. 2005), and Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1977). 5. See 23 Pa. C.S. § 6303(a) (defining a......
-
Power Restoration Int'l, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1922
...or her." Bral Corp. v. Johnstown Am. Corp., No. 08-232, 2011 WL 7037122, *5 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2011). See also DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rodkey, 369 F.Supp. 2d 587, 600 (W.D. Pa.2005) ("[W]hen the Plaintiff first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the Defendant's violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(......