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.: 25-cv-1455-AGS-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR 14 JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE address 75.25.170.113, 15 Defendant. [Dkt. No. 4] 16 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) ex parte motion 19 for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before a Rule 26(f) conference. Dkt. No. 4. For 20 the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant John Doe subscriber 24 assigned IP address 75.25.170.113 (“Defendant”), asserting a single cause of action for 25 direct copyright infringement. See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges it is the owner of certain 26 adult-content films and that Defendant “is committing rampant and wholesale copyright 27 infringement” by downloading and distributing Plaintiff’s works without Plaintiff’s 28 authorization, permission, or consent. See generally id. Defendant’s name and address are 1 unknown to Plaintiff, who can identify Defendant only by Defendant’s IP address. Id. ¶ 13; 2 Dkt. No. 4-1 at 7.1 Plaintiff has identified AT&T Internet (“AT&T”), an internet service 3 provider, as the owner of Defendant’s IP address. Id. at 17. Plaintiff therefore seeks the 4 Court’s leave to serve a subpoena on AT&T which will “only demand the true name and 5 address of Defendant.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff asserts that “[w]ithout this information,” it cannot 6 serve Defendant, “nor pursue this lawsuit and protect its copyrights.” Id. 7 II. 8 LEGAL STANDARDS 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “a party may not seek discovery 10 from another source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)” unless 11 such discovery is “authorized” by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). “[I]n rare cases,” 12 however, courts allow “limited discovery to ensue after filing of the complaint to permit 13 the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts necessary to permit service on the defendant.” 14 Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com,

(N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing 15 Gillespie v. Civiletti,

, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)).2 Courts authorize such “expedited 16 discovery” where the need for the information “outweighs the prejudice to the responding 17 party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc.,

(N.D. Cal. 2002) 18 (applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating [a] request for expedited 19 discovery”). “A district court’s decision to grant discovery to determine jurisdictional facts 20 is a matter of discretion.” Columbia Ins. Co.,

. 21 The Ninth Circuit holds that when the Defendant’s identity is unknown at the time 22 the complaint is filed, a court may grant leave to take early discovery to determine the 23 Defendant’s identity “unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identit[y], or 24

25 26 1 All page citations are to the page numbers generated by the Court’s CM/ECF system.

27 2 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations, footnotes, and parallel reporter citations are omitted from citations. 28 1 that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642. “[T]o 2 prevent abuse of this extraordinary application of the discovery process and to ensure that 3 [the] plaintiff has standing to pursue an action against [the] defendant,” the applicant must 4 “make some showing that an act giving rise to civil liability actually occurred and that the 5 requested discovery is specifically aimed at revealing specific identifying features of the 6 person or entity who committed that act.” Columbia Ins. Co.,

. 7 III. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Courts apply a three-factor test when considering motions for early discovery to 10 identify the Defendant.

. First, the applicant should “identify the missing 11 party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that the defendant is a 12 real person or entity who could be sued in federal court.”

. Second, the applicant 13 must describe “all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant.”

. Third, 14 the applicant should “establish to the Court’s satisfaction that [its] suit . . . could withstand 15 a motion to dismiss.”

The Court considers each of these factors as applied to the instant 16 ex parte motion. 17 A. Identification of Missing Parties with Sufficient Specificity 18 A plaintiff can satisfy its burden of identifying the missing party with specificity by 19 “identify[ing] the unique IP addresses” of the allegedly infringing individuals and then 20 “us[ing] geolocation technology to trace these IP addresses to a point of origin.” See Pink 21 Lotus Entm’t, LLC v. Does 1-46, No. C-11-02263 HRL,

, at *3 (N.D. 22 Cal. June 21, 2011). Before filing the complaint, Plaintiff used geolocation technology to 23 trace the IP address to an address in San Diego, California, which is within this District. 24 See Dkt. No. 4-2 at 29. Plaintiff confirmed this information before filing this motion. See 25

The Court finds Plaintiff has “sufficiently shown” that Defendant is a “real person[] 26 likely residing in California who may be sued in this Court.” Pink Lotus,

2470986, at *3; see also Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe,

(E.D. Cal. 2016) 28 1 (finding that “IP address identification is sufficient, at this stage, to indicate a real person 2 used the network to download the copyrighted files”). 3 B. Attempts to Locate Defendant 4 Next, Plaintiff must identify all steps taken to identify and effect service upon 5 Defendant. See Columbia Ins. Co.,

. Plaintiff reports it attempted to 6 “correlate” Defendant’s IP address to Defendant by using web search tools, conducted 7 research on other methods of identifying and locating Defendant, and consulted with 8 experts in cybersecurity and computer investigators. Dkt. No. 4-1 at 14. Despite these 9 efforts, Plaintiff has been unable to identify Defendant and represents it cannot do so 10 without the requested discovery. See

“Good cause [to permit early discovery] exists 11 where a plaintiff has exhausted its means to identify the defendant through publicly 12 available information and has no other way to identify” the defendant. Amazon.com Inc. 13 v. Vivcic, No. C23-486-JHC-MLP,

, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 22, 2023). 14 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff endeavored to identify and locate Defendant 15 before filing this motion. 16 C. Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss 17 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single cause of action against Defendant for direct 18 copyright infringement. See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 51-56. Plaintiff alleges it owns the subject 19 intellectual property, which Defendant copied and distributed without Plaintiff’s 20 authorization, permission, or consent. Id. ¶¶ 43-49. The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged 21 a prima facie case of direct copyright infringement against Defendant that would likely 22 withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Malibu Media,

(finding, on similar facts, that adult-entertainment company had established a prima 24 facie claim for copyright infringement). 25 Plaintiff also bears the burden of establishing jurisdictional facts. See Columbia Ins. 26 Co.,

. As noted, using geolocation technology, Plaintiff traced 27 Defendant’s IP address to a point of origin within this District before filing its Complaint 28 and confirmed that the IP address traces to this District before filing this motion. See Dkt. 1 No. 4-2 at 29. These facts are sufficient to show “that it is likely that the [d]efendant is 2 located within the Southern District of California and is subject to the personal jurisdiction 3 of the Court.” Criminal Prods., Inc. v. Doe, No. 16-cv-02353-DMS-MDD,

6070355, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). The Court therefore finds Plaintiff has alleged 5 enough facts to show it can likely withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal 6 jurisdiction. 7 For the same reason, venue appears proper. Civil actions for copyright infringement 8 “may be instituted in the district in which Defendant or his agent resides or may be found.” 9

(a). Plaintiff alleges “a substantial part” of the alleged wrongful acts 10 occurred in this District, and further that Defendant resides in this District. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 10. 11 The Court finds that the Complaint could likely withstand a motion to dismiss for improper 12 venue. 13 In sum, and for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established 14 good cause to pursue expedited discovery. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for leave to subpoena 15 AT&T is accordingly GRANTED. 16 D. Good Cause Exists for a Limited Protective Order 17 This Court is empowered to issue a protective order to protect any person or party 18 “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ.

(c). As other courts have observed, both due to the “highly personal nature” of the 20 alleged infringement and the possibility that the subscriber associated with the IP address 21 is not the infringer, good cause exists to protect Defendant Doe’s privacy until further 22 development of the record. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe,

, at *6 23 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2024); accord Columbia Ins. Co.,

(“People who have 24 committed no wrong should be able to participate online without fear that someone who 25 wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power 26 of the court's order to discover their identity.”). Notably, Plaintiff does not oppose, “and 27 in fact[] welcomes,” measures the Court deems necessary to protect the privacy of potential 28 parties and nonparties. Dkt. No. 4-1 at 18. 1 Accordingly, all parties are ORDERED to treat any identifying information 2 regarding Defendant Doe (or any nonparty identified by AT&T) produced in response to 3 the subpoena as “confidential” until Defendant Doe or other nonparties have had the 4 opportunity to file a motion with the Court to proceed in the litigation anonymously and 5 pursuant to a Stipulated Protective Order, and the Court has had a chance to rule on that 6 motion. For the purposes of this Order, “confidential” treatment means the information 7 cannot be used for any purpose outside of this litigation, and within this litigation can only 8 be accessed by the following: individual parties; executives or other designees of corporate 9 parties who are tasked with making decisions about the litigation; counsel for the parties 10 (in-house and outside), and staff working on this litigation at counsel’s direction, including 11 e-discovery or other technical personnel; and outside discovery vendors retained by the 12 parties. 13 IV. 14 CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion [Dkt. No. 4] is GRANTED. 16 It is hereby further ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 upon AT&T for 18 the purpose of obtaining the name and address only of Defendant John Doe, based on the 19 IP address listed in the Complaint: 75.25.170.113. The subpoena shall not seek 20 Defendant’s telephone number, email address, or Media Access Control (MAC) address, 21 as none of this information is necessary for Plaintiff to identify and serve Defendant. 22 2. The return date of the subpoena must allow for at least forty-five (45) days 23 from service to production. If AT&T intends to move to quash the subpoena, it must do 24 so prior to the return date of the subpoena. If a motion to quash or other customer challenge 25 is brought, AT&T must preserve the information sought by Plaintiff pending resolution of 26 the motion or challenge. 27 / / / 28 / / / 3. AT&T shall have fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena 2 || upon it to notify its subscriber that his/her identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The 3 subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have thirty (30) calendar days from 4 ||the date of such notice to challenge the disclosure to Plaintiff by filing an appropriate 5 || pleading with this Court contesting the subpoena. 6 4. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with any subpoena served upon 7 || AT&T pursuant to this Order. AT&T, in turn, must provide a copy of this Order along 8 || with the required notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought pursuant to this Order. 9 5. Any identifying information concerning Defendant Doe or any nonparty 10 || provided in response to the subpoena shall be treated as “confidential” in accordance with 11 ||the terms set forth above. 12 6. Plaintiff may use any information disclosed pursuant to the subpoena only in 13 || pursuing this litigation. 14 7. No other discovery is authorized at this time. 15 16 | IT ISSO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: June 24, 2025 eee 18 Tbr! lho 19 “Hon. DavidD.Leshner SCS 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28