Strike 3 Holding, LLC v. Doe

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01823-RSH-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE v. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD-PARTY JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE address 76.167.182.25, 15 26(f) CONFERENCE Defendant. [ECF No. 4] 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference.

21 ECF No. 4.

22 Here, Plaintiff has failed to properly identify the entity it is seeking to subpoena.

23 Plaintiff asked the Court for leave to issue a subpoena addressed to “Spectrum” but does not specifically identify which “Spectrum.” See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 22cv1626-RSH-MDD, 2022 WL 17363889, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2022) (denying identical motion because “Plaintiff provides no further information about Spectrum, which does not appear to be actively registered to do business in California. [] Active businesses registered under that name in California include Spectrum, LLC, an agricultural supplier, || and Spectrum Inc., a real estate business—not entities likely to provide Defendant's internet || service. [] At least 497 other entities are registered to do business in California under names || beginning with the word ‘Spectrum.””) (internal citations omitted).

4 Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion without prejudice. ECF No. 4; see || Strike 3 Holdings, 2022 WL 173638839, at *2. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion with a ||more specific designation of the entity it is seeking to subpoena.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2022 9 Wioev tH. Koeln 10 Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge