1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-08480-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 9 v. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA 10 JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP & PROTECTING DEFENDANT ADDRESS 73.92.245.29, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s (“Strike 3”) Ex Parte Application for 14 Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Strike 3 seeks a 15 subpoena to compel non-party Comcast Cable Communications, LLC to identify the unknown 16 individual associated with the IP address 73.92.245.29. Based on Strike 3’s submissions, the 17 Court GRANTS leave to serve a subpoena with specific conditions provided below. Because 18 many courts have raised concerns that Strike 3 could be pursuing potentially innocent ISP account 19 owners who are often embarrassed into early settlements, the identity of the Doe Defendant 20 SHALL be protected unless and until further order by the Court. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Strike 3 owns the copyrights for several adult motion pictures that are associated with and 23 distributed through various adult websites. Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.), ¶¶ 1-3. Using a specialized 24 infringement detection system it developed, Strike 3 discovered the IP address of the Doe Defendant 25 who allegedly infringed upon its copyrights. Id. ¶¶ 27-29. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that 26 the Defendant used BitTorrent’s file network to illegally download and distribute about 25 media 27 files of Strike 3’s copyrighted material. Id. ¶¶ 4, 44, 47; see also id., Ex. A. 1 copyright infringement and seeking an injunction and statutory damages. Compl. at 55-56. 2 II. LEGAL STANDARD 3 A court may authorize early discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the parties’ and 4 witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts within the Ninth 5 Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown “good cause” in support of early discovery. 6 See, e.g., IO Grp., Inc. v. Does 1-65,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010); Semitool, 7 Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc.,

(N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be 8 found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, 9 outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool,

. 10 ln evaluating whether a plaintiff establishes good cause to learn the identity of a Doe 11 defendant through early discovery, courts examine whether the plaintiff: (1) identifies the Doe 12 defendant with sufficient specificity that the court can determine that the defendant is a real person 13 who can be sued in federal court; (2) recounts the steps taken to locate and identify the defendant; 14 (3) demonstrates that the action can withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) shows that the discovery 15 is reasonably likely to lead to identifying information that will permit service of process. Columbia 16 Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com,

(N.D. Cal. 1999) (citations omitted). “[W]here 17 the identity of alleged defendants [is not] known prior to the filing of a complaint[,] the plaintiff 18 should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is 19 clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on 20 other grounds.” Wakefield v. Thompson,

(9th Cir. 1999). 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 A. Strike 3’s Litigation History 23 As some courts in this District have done, before turning to the merits of the application, the 24 Court believes that an overview of Strike 3’s litigation history would provide useful context for the 25 Doe Defendant or any other party who may receive this Order. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. 26 John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 98.47.46.165, No. 24-CV-00989-EJD,

1354465, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2024). Especially given the informational disparity and matrix 1 hopefully reduce the prejudice that individual may face. 2 Strike 3 has filed thousands of similar lawsuits and requests to subpoena subscriber 3 information from ISPs, such as Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, 4 LLC v. Doe, No. 23-CV-04339-RS,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2023) (collecting 5 cases). At least one federal judge has also openly characterized Strike 3 as a “copyright troll” that 6 uses its “swarms of lawyers [to] hound people who allegedly watch their content through 7 BitTorrent.” Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe,

(D.D.C. 2018) (describing 8 the copyright troll’s strategy as “file a deluge of complaints; ask the court to compel disclosure of 9 the account holders; settle as many claims as possible; abandon the rest”), rev’d and remanded, 964

(D.C. Cir. 2020). 11 In practice, once subscribers are alerted that they are being sued for uploading pornography, 12 they may be pressured to quickly settle the matter to avoid the risk of having their names publicly 13 associated with the lawsuit or the costs of hiring an expensive copyright legal specialist. See Strike 14 3 Holdings, LLC,

, at *2; see also Strike 3 Holdings,

15 (“[O]nce the ISP outs the subscriber, permitting them to be served as the defendant, any future 16 Google search of their name will tum-up associations with the websites Vixen, Blacked, Tushy, and 17 Blacked Raw.”). As a result, many innocent ISP subscribers would be pressured to settle, even 18 though several courts have observed that “ISP subscribers may not be the individuals who infringed 19 upon Strike 3’s copyright.” Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:23-CV-01977-LB,

4003723, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2023) (collecting cases); see also Strike 3 Holdings,

3d at 162 (“[I]nferring the person who pays the cable bill illegally downloaded a specific file is even 22 less trustworthy than inferring they watched a specific TV show.”). Moreover, if a defendant moves 23 to confront a “copyright troll” or exhibits any serious resistance, the company can simply drop the 24 case and avoid any unfavorable judicial rulings. See Strike 3 Holdings,

25 (“These serial litigants drop cases at the first sign of resistance, preying on low-hanging fruit and 26 staying one step ahead of any coordinated defense.”). 27 / / / 1 B. Good Cause 2 Turning to the merits of Strike 3’s ex parte application, the Court finds that Strike 3 has 3 demonstrated good cause for this early discovery under the four seescandy.com factors. See 4 seescandy.com,

. 5 First, the Court finds that Strike 3 has identified the Doe Defendant with sufficient specificity 6 for the Court to determine that the Doe Defendant is a real person who may be sued in federal court. 7 The Complaint alleges that BitTorrent’s protocols require the activity of a human user to share 8 movies within the BitTorrent network. Compl. ¶¶ 18-27. Strike 3 also used Maxmind geolocation 9 technology to trace the IP address it procured through its VXN Scan detection software to a 10 geographic location within this district. Id. ¶ 9. 11 Second, Strike 3 has recounted the steps it took to locate and identify the Doe Defendant. In 12 addition to the geolocation and infringement detection technology described immediately above, 13 Strike 3 has attempted to associate the IP address with a defendant individual using various web 14 search tools and consultations with computer investigators and cyber security consultants. Dkt. No. 15 7 (“Appl.”) at 10. 16 Third, Strike 3 has preliminarily demonstrated that its action can withstand a motion to 17 dismiss. “Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct 18 infringement: (1) they must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) they must 19 demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright 20 holders under

.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,

(9th 21 Cir. 2007). A copyright holder’s rights under Section 106 include the exclusive rights to reproduce, 22 distribute, publicly display, perform, and create derivative works of the copyrighted work. 17

. Here, Strike 3 alleges that it owns the copyrights to adult movies that the Doe 24 Defendant downloaded, copied, and distributed without permission. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 44. Accepting 25 these allegations as true, the Court finds that the Complaint may withstand a motion to dismiss. 26 Finally, Strike 3 has shown that the discovery it seeks is reasonably likely to lead to 27 identifying information that will permit service of process on the Doe Defendant. Specifically, 1 that can correlate the IP address to its subscriber and identify Defendant as the person assigned the 2 IP address is Defendant’ s ISP.” Appl. at 6 (citing BMG Rts. Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc’ns, 3 Inc.,

(4th Cir. 2018) (“[O]nly the ISP can match the IP address to the subscriber’s 4 identity.”)). 5 In sum, the Court finds that Strike 3 has satisfied all four seescandy.com factors and presented 6 good cause for its requested expedited discovery. 7 C. Protective Order 8 Even though Strike 3 is entitled to a pre-discovery subpoena, the Court retains authority under 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to grant a sua sponte protective order for good cause. See, 10 e.g., McCoy v. Sw. Airlines Co.,

(C.D. Cal. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In 11 this case, the Court finds that there is good cause to implement limited protective measures to shield 12 a potential innocent and unwitting ISP subscriber from undue prejudice. Strike 3 does not oppose 13 establishing procedural safeguards to respect privacy interests. Appl. at 12-13. 14 Consistent with the protective measures undertaken by many other courts in this district, the 15 Court will employ procedures to treat as confidential any personal information regarding the Doe 16 Defendant that Comcast Cable Communications, LLC produces to Strike 3. The Court will also 17 permit and consider any request by the Doe Defendant to proceed anonymously under a pseudonym. 18 IV. CONCLUSION 19 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Strike 3s Ex Parte Application with respect to 20 Defendant Doe, Subscriber Assigned IP Address 73.92.245.29, as follows: 21 1. Within 21 days of this Order, Strike 3 MAY serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Comcast Cable 22 Communications, LLC (“ISP”), commanding the ISP to provide Strike 3 with the true name 23 and address of the Defendant to whom the ISP assigned an IP address as set forth on Exhibit 24 A to the Complaint. Strike 3 SHALL attach a copy of this Order to any such subpoena. 25 a. Strike 3 MAY serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the same manner as above on any service 26 provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of Internet services 27 to the Defendant. 1 b. Ifthe ISP qualifies as a “cable operator” per

(5), then it shall comply 2 with

(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of this Order to Defendant. 3 2. Within thirty (30) days of being served by Strike 3, the ISP SHALL serve the Doe Defendant 4 subscriber assigned the IP address 73.92.245.29 with a copy of the subpoena and this Order. 5 3. Within thirty (30) days after he or she has been served with the subpoena and this Order, the 6 Doe Defendant MAY file a motion to contest the subpoena, including a motion to quash or 7 modify the subpoena. The Doe Defendant MAY appear and proceed before this Court under 8 a pseudonym by requesting that their personal identifying information be filed under seal. 9 a. Ifthe Doe Defendant does not contest the subpoena within thirty days, the ISP may 10 produce the information responsive to Strike 3’s subpoena within ten (10) days. 11 4. Strike 3 MAY only use the information disclosed in response to its subpoena for the purpose 12 of protecting and enforcing its rights as set forth in the Complaint. Strike 3 MAY NOT 5 13 publicly disclose the information obtained from its subpoena without leave of this Court. 14 All references to the Doe Defendant’s identity SHALL be redacted and filed under seal until 3 15 further notice. 16 5. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC or any other ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant 3 17 to this Order SHALL confer with Strike 3 and MAY NOT assess any charge in advance of 18 providing the information requested in the subpoena. The ISP that receives a subpoena and 19 elects to charge for the costs of production must provide a billing summary and cost reports 20 that serve as a basis for the billing summary and costs claimed by the ISP. Comcast Cable 21 Communications, LLC or any other ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant to this Order 22 SHALL preserve any subpoenaed information pending the resolution of any timely filed 23 motion to dismiss. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: November 3, 2025 26 □ □

28 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge