1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-02569-WBS-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH 14 JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 61.172.172.43 15 Defendant. 16 17 On November 11, 2025, defendant John Doe filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued by 18 plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, to defendant’s internet service provider (“ISP”), Comcast Cable 19 Communications, LLC, seeking his1 subscriber information. Alternatively, defendant seeks a 20 protective order. Upon review of defendant’s motion to quash and plaintiff’s response, the court 21 finds this motion can be resolved without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). The court 22 denies defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena. Plaintiff is ordered to serve a copy of this order 23 on the ISP. 24 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 25 This case is one of many filed by Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, alleging copyright 26 infringement of adult-content movies distributed through its websites. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1-3.) 27 1 Defendant’s gender is not known. Pronouns refer to the “John Doe” party designation by 28 plaintiff. 1 Plaintiff alleges defendant has, over a period of time, used the BitTorrent protocol to download 2 and distribute 24 of plaintiff’s movies to others in violation of plaintiff’s copyrights. (ECF No. 1 3 ¶ 4.) Defendant is known to plaintiff only by his IP address, which is maintained by Comcast 4 Cable. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 5.) 5 In order to acquire the true name and address of defendant, plaintiff brought an ex parte 6 application to serve a third-party subpoena on defendant’s ISP. (ECF No. 3.) The undersigned 7 determined that good cause existed for the application and granted the application on October 22, 8 2025. (ECF No. 4.) Special procedural safeguards were set to protect defendant’s identity and 9 expectation of privacy. Plaintiff was directed to serve a copy of the order on defendant to inform 10 him of the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena. The order directed that “until 11 permission is given by the court, [plaintiff] is not to reveal the identity of the defendant in or out 12 of court.” (ECF No. 4 at 6.) 13 On or about October 22, 2025, plaintiff served the subpoena on the ISP, which has not yet 14 responded. (See ECF No. 7.) On November 10, 2025, defendant moved to quash the subpoena. 15 (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 6.) 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, any party may serve a subpoena that 18 commands a non-party ‘to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible 19 things . . . .’” Soto v. Castlerock Farming & Transp., Inc.,

(E.D. Cal. 2012) 20 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(C)). 21 When a party timely files a motion to quash, a district court must “quash or modify a 22 subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply 23 beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or 24 other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue 25 burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Additionally, a district court “may . . . quash or modify the 26 subpoena if it requires: (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or 27 commercial information; or (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does 28 not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s study that was not 1 requested by a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B). 2 The party issuing the subpoena must demonstrate that the discovery is relevant, while the 3 party seeking to quash the subpoena has the burden of persuasion. Soto,

. 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 Defendant moves to quash the subpoena on the basis that defendant is a retiree and does 6 not use or understand BitTorrent software. (ECF No. 5 at 3.) Defendant states that he pays for the 7 Comcast account, multiple individuals, including family members, guest, friends, and contractors, 8 have access to the wireless network. (Id.) Defendant argues that during the alleged time, he has no 9 means to identify which device or person may have used the IP address. (Id.) Defendant also 10 argues that the subpoena imposes undue burden and risks misidentification and seeks a protective 11 order. (Id. at 4.) Defendant asks the court to quash the subpoena. (Id.) 12 In sum, defendant claims innocence. While this defense may prove to be true, courts in 13 this and other circuits have consistently rejected the argument that a defendant’s status as a 14 registered subscriber of an IP address associated with infringing activity is insufficient to support 15 discovery of the subscriber’s identity where others could have used the IP address. E.g., Strike 3 16 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 19cv2425-JAH (LL),

, at *9 (S.D. Cal. 17 May 3, 2020) (“although an IP address and a subscriber’s name alone may be insufficient to state 18 a claim of infringement, …subpoenas may [ ] be used to determine a subscriber’s name”); Strike 19 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 4:18-cv-04993-KAW,

, at *6 (N.D. 20 Cal. Feb. 6 2019); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 2:18-cv-02637 MCE CKD,

Dist. LEXIS 30674, at ** 9 & 11 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019) (citing collected cases). 22 At this point in the litigation, plaintiff has made an adequate showing of the need to 23 subpoena defendant’s ISP to determine whether it can obtain the identity of the proper defendant. 24 To the extent defendant alleges factual innocence, such a consideration is premature and may be 25 raised in a motion to dismiss. To the extent defendant requests a protective order or limited 26 disclosure, the court has already ordered that the subscriber’s identity will remain protected, both 27 in and out of court, until the court orders otherwise. (See ECF No. 4 at 6.) 28 ///// ] For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena (ECF No. 5) is DENIED. 3 || Dated: December 9, 2025 Cad Kt | (£4 (g—

5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 | 5, sti.2569.25 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28