1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.: 24-cv-1307-H-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD-PARTY 14 JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE address 70.95.100.233, 15 26(f) CONFERENCE Defendant. 16 [DKT. NO. 4] 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party 19 Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff has sued only a fictitious 20 “Doe” Defendant; thus, no party has filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. For the 21 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant “John Doe” whom 24 Plaintiff alleges is a Spectrum subscriber assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) address 25 70.95.100.233. Dkt. No. 1 at 2.1 Plaintiff alleges it “is the owner of award-winning, 26 27 1 When referencing page numbers for documents filed with the Court, the Court’s citation 28 1 critically acclaimed adult motion pictures.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff asserts Defendant is 2 committing “rampant and wholesale copyright infringement” by downloading and 3 distributing copies of Plaintiff’s copyrighted motion pictures without authorization using 4 the BitTorrent file distribution network. Id. at 2, 4–7. 5 On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff seeks an 6 order from the Court allowing it to serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 7 Procedure 45 on Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) Spectrum seeking Defendant’s “true 8 name and address” so Plaintiff can serve a summons upon Defendant and litigate this case. 9 Dkt. No. 4-1 at 7–8. 10 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 11 Courts may grant a request for early or expedited discovery upon a showing of good 12 cause. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc.,

(N.D. Cal. 2002) 13 (applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff’s request for 14 expedited discovery”). To determine whether “good cause” exists to permit expedited 15 discovery to identify Doe defendants, courts consider whether a plaintiff (1) “identif[ies] 16 the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that the 17 defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court”; (2) “identif[ies] all 18 previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant” to ensure plaintiff has made a good 19 faith effort to identify the defendant; (3) “establish[es] to the Court’s satisfaction that 20 plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss”; and (4) proves 21 “there is a reasonable likelihood that the discovery process will lead to identifying 22 informant about defendant that would make service of process possible.” Columbia Ins. 23 Co. v. seescandy.com,

, 578–80 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citations omitted). 24 “A district court’s decision to grant discovery to determine jurisdictional facts is a 25 matter of discretion.”

(citation omitted). 26 III. DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiff has shown in declarations attached to its Motion that Defendant is real and 28 can be sued and has—through the identification of the unique IP address, the date and time 1 of the alleged connection, and the name of the ISP—identified Defendant with the requisite 2 specificity to justify an early subpoena. See Dkt. No. 4-2 at 19–22, 29, 32; see also Malibu 3 Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 16-cv-444-GPC-BGS,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 4 Apr. 22, 2016) (“Based on . . . (1) the specific subscriber IP address at issue, (2) the dates 5 and times of connection, and (3) the name of internet service provider for the IP address 6 located, the Court finds the subscriber/doe defendant has been identified with sufficient 7 specificity.”). 8 Plaintiff also established it cannot identify the Defendant without the requested 9 information from the ISP. See Dkt. No. 4-1 at 14; see also Malibu Media, LLC,

1618227, at *3 (relying on a plaintiff’s efforts to locate an IP address and declaration stating 11 “the only entity able to correlate an IP address to a specific individual at a given date and 12 time is the Internet Service Provider” to establish “a good faith effort to identify the 13 subscriber/doe defendant”).2 14 Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Plaintiff owns the copyrights at issue and 15 specifically lists the registration numbers of the allegedly infringed works. See Dkt. No. 1- 16 2. Although the Court is not conclusively deciding the matter, it appears the complaint 17 could withstand a motion to dismiss. See Malibu Media, LLC,

, at *4 18 (“Plaintiff’s complaint lists the copyrighted movie titles which it owns and has registered, 19 with a listing of the copyright registration numbers of the allegedly infringed works at 20 issue. . . . The plaintiff has also demonstrated . . . that an ISP maintains the subscriber 21 records that contain the name and address information they seek. Accordingly, Plaintiff has 22 23

24 2 The Court also considers the requirements of the Cable Privacy Act,

. The 25 Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing personally identifiable information regarding subscribers without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber. 47

(c)(1). A cable operator, however, may disclose such information if the 27 disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable operator provides the subscriber with notice of the order.

(c)(2)(B). The ISP that Plaintiff intends to 28 1 ||made a prima facie showing of copyright ownership and a violation of the copyright that 2 could survive a motion to dismiss.”) (citations omitted). 3 Finally, Plaintiff has shown the requested discovery will lead to identifying 4 information, as it has identified a unique IP address that an ISP can tie, at least potentially, 5 || to a specific individual. Dkt. No. 4-1 at 17; Dkt. No. 4-2 at 29, 32. Accordingly, Plaintiff 6 || has established good cause and may serve a subpoena upon the ISP Spectrum. 7 IV. CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may 9 ||serve a subpoena on the ISP seeking only the true name and address of the individual 10 || identified. Plaintiff may not seek any further information or propound any other discovery 11 || without leave of Court and may not use the information gathered through the subpoena for 12 purpose except to identify and serve the Doe defendant in the instant litigation. If the 13 seeks to quash the subpoena, it must do so before the subpoena’s return date, which 14 || must be at least 45 days from service. In the event the subpoena is challenged, the ISP must 15 || preserve the data sought until the dispute is adjudicated. Plaintiff must attach a copy of this 16 || Order to the subpoena. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: August 21, 2024 9 Dank Bio 0 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28