1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Case No.: 25CV1140-GPC(BLM) 10 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 12 v. SERVE A THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE 13 JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address

99.113.196.45, 14 [ECF No. 4] Defendant. 15 16 17 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 15, 2025 “ Application for Leave to 19 Serve a Third-Party Subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference.” ECF No. 4. Because the 20 Defendant has not been identified, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed. See Docket. 21 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and all supporting documents, the Court GRANTS the motion 22 for the reasons set forth below. 23 BACKGROUND 24 On May 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against John Doe alleging direct copyright 25 infringement. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff states that it “is the owner of award-winning, critically 26 acclaimed adult motion pictures.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, who is only known 27 by “his or her IP address [99.113.196.45]” is using the BitTorrent protocol to “commit[] rampant 1 distributing them to others.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff describes the BitTorrent File Distribution 2 Network (“BitTorrent”) as “a system designed to quickly distribute large files over the internet.” 3 Id. at 4. Plaintiff states that BitTorrent allows users “to connect to the computers of other 4 BitTorrent users in order to simultaneously download and upload pieces of the file from and to 5 other users” “without creating a heavy load on any individual source computer and/or network.” 6 Id. Plaintiff further explains the process of distributing a large file through BitTorrent and notes 7 that “[t]o share a movie within the BitTorrent network, a user first uses BitTorrent software to 8 create a .torrent file from the original digital media file” which “breaks the original digital media 9 file down into numerous pieces.”1 Id. This allows the BitTorrent user to “download[] all of the 10 pieces of that digital media file from other BitTorrent users [so that] the digital media file is 11 automatically reassembled into its original form, ready for playing.” Id. at 4-5. 12 On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an order from the Court 13 allowing it to serve a subpoena to Defendant’s Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), AT&T Inc. 14 (“AT&T Internet”), seeking Defendant’s true name and address pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 45. ECF No. 4-1 at 7-8. 16 LEGAL STANDARD 17 A. The Cable Privacy Act 18 The Cable Privacy Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing personally 19 identifiable information regarding subscribers without the prior written or electronic consent of 20 the subscriber.

(c)(1). However, a cable operator may disclose such information 21 if the disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable operator provides the subscriber 22 with notice of the order.

(c)(2)(B). A cable operator is defined as “any person 23 or group of persons (A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through 24 one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or (B) who otherwise 25 26 1 Each piece is assigned a unique cryptographic hash value, which is used to properly route the 27 pieces among BitTorrent users. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. “As such, while two identical sets of data will produce the same cryptographic hash value, any change to the underlying data – no matter how 1 controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such 2 a cable system.”

(5). Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an Order instructing AT&T 3 Internet to produce documents and information sufficient to identify the user of the specified 4 Internet Protocol (“IP”) address. ECF No. 4-1 at 7-8. 5 B. Early Discovery 6 A party may not seek discovery from any source before the Rule 26(f) conference unless 7 that party first obtains a stipulation or court order permitting early discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 26(d)(1). “In the Ninth Circuit, courts use the ‘good cause’ standard to determine whether 9 discovery should be allowed to proceed prior to a Rule 26(f) conference.” Synopsys, Inc. v. 10 AzureEngine Technologies, Inc,

, 1076 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting Rovio 11 Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc.,

(N.D. Cal. 2012) (internal quotation 12 marks omitted). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in 13 consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” 14 Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc.,

(N.D. Cal. 2002). Good 15 cause for expedited discovery has been found in cases involving claims of infringement and 16 unfair competition or in cases where the plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction.

In 17 infringement cases, expedited discovery is frequently limited to allowing plaintiffs to identify Doe 18 defendants. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe,

, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2021) 19 (granting leave to take expedited discovery for documents that would reveal the identity and 20 contact information for each Doe defendant). 21 District courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a three-factor test when considering motions for 22 expedited discovery to identify certain defendants.

at *2 (citing Columbia Ins. Co. v. 23 Seescandy.com,

(N.D. Cal. 1999)). First, the plaintiff should “identify 24 the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the court can determine that the defendant 25 is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court.” Columbia Ins. Co.,

578. Second, the plaintiff must describe “all previous steps taken to locate the elusive 27 defendant” to ensure that plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify the defendant.

1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Identification of Doe Defendant with Sufficient Specificity 3 First, Plaintiff must identify the Doe defendant with sufficient specificity to enable the 4 Court to determine that the Doe defendant is a real person subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. 5 See

. “Some district courts in the Ninth Circuit have determined that a plaintiff 6 identifies Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by providing the unique IP addresses 7 assigned to an individual defendant on the day of the allegedly infringing conduct, and by using 8 ‘geolocation technology’ to trace the IP addresses to a physical point of origin.” 808 Holdings, 9 LLC v. Collective of Dec. 29, 2011 Sharing Hash E37917C8EEB4585E6421358FF32F29C 10 D63C23C91,

, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2012); see e.g., OpenMind Sols., Inc. 11 v. Does 1-39,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011) (finding plaintiff met its burden 12 to identify the Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by identifying the unique IP addresses 13 of individuals engaged in BitTorrent protocol and using geolocation technology to trace the IP 14 addresses to a point of origin within the state of California); Pink Lotus Entm't, LLC v. Does 1- 15 46,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011) (same). “Others have found that merely 16 identifying the IP addresses assigned to the defendants on the day of the purported infringement 17 is sufficient to satisfy the first factor.” 808 Holdings, LLC,

, at *4; see 18 e.g., First Time Videos, LLC v. Does,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2011) (“First 19 Time Videos has identified the Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by submitting a chart 20 listing each of the defendants by the IP address assigned to them on the day it alleges the 21 particular defendant engaged in the infringing conduct.”). This Court finds the first standard 22 persuasive. 23 Plaintiff has provided a declaration from Plaintiff’s Enterprise Architect, Jorge Arco, who 24 “was part of a team that developed the infringement detection system VXN Scan (“VXN”)” and 25 “oversee[s] the VXN Scan infrastructure and work[s] with Strike 3’s legal team to ensure that 26 the VXN Scan is always running properly.” ECF No. 4-2, Declaration of Jorge Arco In Support of 27 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) 1 the IP addresses used by individuals infringing Plaintiff’s movies via the BitTorrent protocol.”

2 at 9, ¶ 41. Mr. Arco explains that VXN connects with an IP intelligence and online fraud detection 3 tool called Maxmind, which is used “to determine both the Internet Service Provider that 4 assigned a particular IP address as well as the city and state that the IP Address traces to.”

5 at 14-15, ¶¶ 76-79. Here, after Plaintiff “received infringement data from VXN Scan identifying 6 IP address 99.113.196.45 as infringing its works, the IP address was automatically inputted into 7 Maxmind’s Geolocation Database” and it “determined that the IP address traced to a location in 8 San Diego, California, which is within this Court’s jurisdiction.” ECF No. 4-2, Declaration of Emilie 9 Kennedy In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoena Prior to a Rule 10 26(f) Conference (“Kennedy Decl.”) at 29, ¶¶ 4-5. The Maxmind database also revealed that IP 11 address 99.113.196.45 belonged to AT&T Internet.

at Exh. 1. 12 Because Plaintiff has provided the Court with the unique IP address, the dates and times 13 of connection, the name of the ISP that provided Internet access for the user of the identified 14 IP address, and used geolocation technology, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a 15 satisfactory showing that John Doe is a real person or entity behind the alleged infringing 16 conduct who would be subject to suit in federal court and is located in this District. 17 B. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant 18 Second, Plaintiff must describe all prior attempts it has made to identify the Doe 19 defendant in a good faith effort to locate and serve them. Columbia Ins. Co.,

- 20 579. Plaintiff first sought “to correlate Defendant’s IP address to Defendant by searching for 21 Defendant’s IP address on various web search tools, including basic search engines like 22 www.google.com.” ECF No. 4-1 at 14. Plaintiff also has conducted its own independent research 23 and consulted with computer investigators and cyber security consultants.

Plaintiff provided 24 a declaration from Mr. Patrick Paige, a former detective in the computer crimes unit of the Palm 25 Beach County Sheriff’s Department and a Managing Member at Computer Forensics, LLC., who 26 opined that “Defendant’s ISP AT&T Internet is the only entity that can correlate the IP address 27 to its subscriber and identify Defendant as the person assigned the IP address 99.113.196.45 1 Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) 2 Conference (“Paige Decl.”) at 18-19, 22, ¶¶ 3, 10, 28. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff 3 has made a good-faith effort to identify and locate Defendant before filing the instant 4 application. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe,

, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2020). 5 C. Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss 6 Finally, Plaintiff must establish that its lawsuit can withstand a motion to dismiss. See 7 Columbia Ins. Co.,

. To prove a claim of claim of copyright infringement, 8 Plaintiff must show (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) that the defendant violated the 9 copyright owner’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzalez, 10

(2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 11 Plaintiff provides evidence that it is the owner of the copyrighted works at issue. ECF No. 12 4-2, Declaration of Susan B. Stalzer In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve 13 Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (“Stalzer Decl.”) at 26, ¶ 11; Arco Decl. at 4, ¶ 14. 14 Plaintiff also provides evidence that the Doe Defendant using the identified IP address infringed 15 Plaintiff’s copyrighted works by using the BitTorrent File Distribution Network. See generally 16 Arco Decl.; Paige Decl. Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged facts that could establish the 17 elements of direct copyright infringement and could withstand a motion to dismiss. See 18 Columbia Ins. Co.,

. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Having found good cause, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery. 21 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that: 22 1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on AT&T Internet 23 that seeks only the true name and address of John Doe. Plaintiff may not subpoena additional 24 information; 25 2. Plaintiff may only use the disclosed information for the sole purpose of protecting 26 its rights in pursuing this litigation; 27 3. Within fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena, AT&T Internet 1 || whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have thirty (30) calendar days from the date of such 2 notice to challenge the disclosure by filing an appropriate pleading with this Court contesting 3 subpoena; 4 4. If AT&T Internet wishes to move to quash the subpoena, it shall do so before the 5 || return date of the subpoena. The return date of the subpoena must allow for at least forty-five 6 ||(45) days from service to production. If a motion to quash or other customer challenge is 7 brought, AT&T Internet must preserve the information sought by Plaintiff in the subpoena 8 || pending resolution of such motion or challenge; and 9 5. Plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order with any subpoena obtained and served 10 || pursuant to this Order on AT&T Internet. AT&T Internet, in turn, must provide a copy of this 11 || Order along with the required notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought pursuant to this 12 || Order. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: 5/27/2025 /vnbe Mg or 15 Hon. Barbara L. Major 6 United States Maqistrate Judde

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28