Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00074/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00074-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP 

address 66.75.47.164, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD 

PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A 

RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

[ECF NO. 4] 

On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an Ex Parte 

Application for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference 

[ECF No. 4]. Plaintiff seeks to subpoena Defendant John Doe’s Internet service provider, 

Spectrum, to “learn Defendant’s true identity, investigate Defendant’s role in the 

infringement, and if warranted by the investigation, effectuate service.” (Ex Parte Appl. 

Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 6-7, ECF No. 4.)1

 Because no Defendant has been named or 

served, no opposition has been filed. For the following reasons, the Ex Parte Application 

                                               

1

The Court cites to documents as paginated on the electronic case filing system. 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 11
2 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference is 

GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Strike 3 Holdings”) purports to be the registered 

owner of certain copyrighted motion pictures. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.) On January 10, 

2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant John Doe, an internet subscriber 

assigned Internet protocol (“IP”) address 66.75.47.164, used the BitTorrent file 

distribution network to illegally download and distribute forty-seven of Plaintiff’s 

copyrighted works. (Id. at 2, 4-5; id. Attach. Ex. A, at 1-3.) Strike 3 Holdings states that 

its investigator identified Defendant’s IP address as a participant in infringing activity. 

(Compl. 5, ECF No. 1.) 

On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a 

Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference [ECF No. 4]. Strike 3 Holdings 

seeks leave to serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on 

Defendant’s Internet service provider (“ISP”), Spectrum. (Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 

Mem. P. & A. 6-7, ECF No. 4.) Strike 3 Holdings requests limited discovery from the 

ISP, arguing that the ISP assigned Doe Defendant’s IP address, and Plaintiff can use the 

IP address to identify Defendant’s true name and address. (Id.) 

On February 7, 2019, the Court issued a minute order directing Plaintiff to 

supplement its Ex Parte Application by providing evidence that Plaintiff’s geolocation 

services vendor determined that IP address 66.75.47.164 was located in the Southern 

District of California. (Mins., Feb. 7, 2019, ECF No. 5.) On February 14, 2019, Strike 3 

Holdings provided a declaration from its in-house counsel stating that the device 

associated with the IP address that is the subject of this suit is located in San Diego, 

California. (Decl. Kennedy Supp. Ex Parte Appl. 2, ECF No. 6.)

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 11
3 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. Cable Privacy Act 

The Cable Privacy Act generally prohibits a cable operator from disclosing 

“personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written 

or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned . . . .” 47 U.S.C.A. § 551(c)(1) (West 

2014). A cable operator, however, may disclose the information if the disclosure is made 

pursuant to a court order and the cable operator notifies the subscriber of the order. Id. 

§ 551(c)(2)(C). 

[T]he term ‘cable operator’ means any person or group of persons (A) who 

provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or 

more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or (B) who 

otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the 

management and operation of such a cable system. 

47 U.S.C.A. § 522(5) (West 2014). 

B. Requests for Discovery Before Rule 26(f) Conference 

Generally, discovery is not permitted without a court order before the parties have 

conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). 

Yet, “in rare cases, courts have made exceptions, permitting limited discovery to ensue 

after filing of the complaint to permit the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts necessary 

to permit service on the defendant.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 

573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 

1980)). A party who requests early or expedited discovery must establish good cause. 

Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Elec. Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that when the defendants’ identities are unknown at the 

time the complaint is filed, courts may grant plaintiffs leave to take early discovery to 

determine the defendants’ identities “unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover 

the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Gillespie, 629 

F.2d at 642. “A district court’s decision to grant discovery to determine jurisdictional 

facts is a matter of discretion.” Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578. 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 11
4 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

District courts consider multiple factors when deciding motions for early discovery 

to identify Doe defendants. Id. at 578-80. First, the plaintiff should “identify the missing 

party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real 

person or entity who could be sued in federal court.” Id. at 578. Second, the movant 

must describe “all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant” to ensure that the 

plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and serve process on the defendant. Id. 

at 579. Third, the plaintiff should establish that its suit against the defendant could 

withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. “Lastly, the plaintiff should file a request for 

discovery with the Court, along with a statement of reasons justifying the specific 

discovery requested as well as identification of a limited number of persons or entities on 

whom discovery process might be served . . . .” Id. at 580. The plaintiff must 

demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the requested discovery will yield information 

about the defendant so that service of process is possible. See id. These factors will 

ensure that early discovery to identify Doe defendants will be sought only after “the 

plaintiff has in good faith exhausted traditional avenues for identifying a civil defendant 

pre-service, and will prevent use of this method to harass or intimidate.” Id. at 578. 

III. ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff requests leave to issue a Rule 45 subpoena to Doe Defendant’s ISP, 

Spectrum. Spectrum is a cable operator, and the information requested by Strike 3 

Holdings falls within the exception to the Cable Privacy Act’s disclosure prohibition. 

See 47 U.S.C.A. § 551(c)(2)(C). Accordingly, if Plaintiff satisfies the multiple-factor test 

used by courts to determine whether to allow early discovery, Doe Defendant’s ISP may 

disclose the requested information pursuant to this Court’s order. 

A. Identification of the Doe Defendant with Sufficient Specificity 

Plaintiff has the burden to identify the Doe Defendant with enough specificity to 

establish that the Defendant is a real person or entity, subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. 

Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578. “[A] plaintiff identifies Doe defendants with 

sufficient specificity by providing the unique IP addresses assigned to an individual 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 11
5 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

defendant on the day of the allegedly infringing conduct, and by using ‘geolocation 

technology’ to trace the IP addresses to a physical point of origin.” 808 Holdings, LLC 

v. Collective of Dec. 29, 2011 Sharing Hash E37917C8EEB4585E6421358FF32F29C 

D63C23C91, Civil No. 12cv00186 MMA(RBB), 2012 WL 12884688, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 

May 8, 2012) (citing OpenMind Sols., Inc. v. Does 1–39, No. C 11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 

4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); Pink Lotus Entm’t, LLC v. Does 1-46, No. C–

11–02263 HRL, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)). 

Strike 3 Holdings asserts that between June 19, 2017, and November 15, 2018, 

Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted works by using the BitTorrent file distribution 

network. (See Compl. 5-6, ECF No. 1; see also id. Attach. #2 Ex. A, at 1-3.) Plaintiff 

retained a forensic investigation services company, IPP International UG (“IPP”), to 

monitor the BitTorrent file distribution network for copyrighted works and identify IP 

addresses used by infringers to distribute copyrighted works within the network. (See Ex 

Parte Appl. Attach. #2 Decl. Fieser 11, ECF No. 4.) Strike 3 Holdings has provided a 

declaration from IPP’s employee, Tobias Fieser, who reviewed IPP’s forensic activity 

records and determined that IPP’s servers connected to an electronic device using IP 

address 66.75.47.164. (See id.) He discovered that the IP address distributed to IPP’s 

servers “multiple pieces” of Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted motion pictures. (Id.) Fieser 

explains that the movie pieces were recorded in a “PCAP, which stands for ‘packet 

capture’ and is a forensically sound interface for recording network traffic”; and that 

“reassembling the pieces using a specialized BitTorrent client results in a fully 

playable digital movie.” (Id. at 12.) According to Fieser, digital files can be identified 

by a “Cryptographic Hash Value,” and the files distributed by Defendant’s IP address 

“have a unique identifier of the Cryptographic Hash outlined on Exhibit A [to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint].” (Id.) He also states that IP address 66.75.47.164 “is associated with 

significant long term BitTorrent use.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff further contends that Doe Defendant’s IP address belongs to Spectrum. 

(See Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 6, 17, ECF No. 4.) Strike 3 Holdings 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 11
6 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

asserts that Maxmind Inc. (“Maxmind”) identified Spectrum as the owner of Defendant’s 

IP address. (See id. at 17; see also Compl. 2-3, ECF No. 1.) The American Registry for 

Internet Numbers, “a nonprofit, member-based organization, responsible for the 

management and distribution of IP addresses across most of North America,” also 

identified Spectrum as the owner of the IP address 66.75.47.164. (Ex Parte Appl. Attach. 

#1 Mem. P. & A. 17, ECF No. 4; see also id. Attach. #2 Decl. Stalzer 20, ECF No. 4.) 

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges in its Complaint and Ex Parte Application that it 

used IP address geolocation technology by Maxmind to determine that Doe Defendant’s 

IP address traced to a physical address within this Court’s jurisdiction. (See Compl. 2-3, 

ECF No. 1; Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 12-13, ECF No. 4.) At the Court’s 

request, Plaintiff provided a declaration from its in-house counsel, Emilie Kennedy, 

stating that the device associated with the IP address 66.75.47.164 is located in the 

Southern District of California. (Decl. Kennedy Supp. Ex Parte Appl. 2, ECF No. 6.) 

Kennedy declares that on August 23, 2018, after Plaintiff first received infringement data 

from IPP, the IP address 66.75.47.164 was automatically inserted into Maxmind’s 

Geolocation Database, and “Maxmind determined that the IP address traced to a location 

in San Diego.” (Id.) She further declares on February 14, 2019, she reinserted the IP 

address 66.75.47.164 into Maxmind’s Geolocation Database and confirmed that the IP 

address continued to trace to San Diego. (Id.) 

Plaintiff has therefore provided information about infringing activity tied to Doe 

Defendant’s unique IP address, specific dates and times associated with the activity, and 

the name of the ISP for the user of the IP address; and Strike 3 Holdings used geolocation 

technology to trace the IP address to San Diego, California. Plaintiff has demonstrated 

that a person or entity engaged in acts of infringement using the IP address 66.75.47.164, 

and the IP address likely corresponds to a physical address located in the Southern 

District of California. See Criminal Prods., Inc. v. Doe-72.192.163.220, Case No. 16-cv2589 WQH (JLB), 2016 WL 6822186, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2016) (“[B]ased on the 

timing of the IP address tracing efforts employed by Plaintiff’s investigator, the 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 11
7 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

documented success of the Maxmind geolocation service, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts 

to independently verify the location information provided by Plaintiff’s investigator, . . . 

[defendant’s IP address] likely resolves to a physical address located in this District.”);

see also Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Case No.: 3:17-cv-02316-GPC-KSC, 2018 WL 

324264, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2018) (citing Criminal Prods., Inc, 2016 WL 6822186, at 

*3). Accordingly, Plaintiff has satisfied the “sufficient specificity” threshold. See 

Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578.

B. Previous Attempts to Locate Doe Defendant 

To obtain leave to take early discovery, Plaintiff is also required to describe the 

steps it took to identify the Doe Defendant in a good faith effort to locate and serve the 

defendant. See id. at 579. Strike 3 Holdings searched for Defendant’s IP address using 

various internet search tools, reviewed numerous sources of authority, and conferred with 

computer investigators and cyber security consultants. (Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. 

P. & A. 13-14, ECF No. 4.) Additionally, Plaintiff retained forensic investigation 

services company IPP to monitor the BitTorrent file distribution network for copyrighted 

works and identify the IP addresses used to distribute the works. (Ex Parte Appl. Attach. 

#2 Decl. Fieser 11.) IPP determined that IP address 66.75.47.164 had distributed 

“ multiple pieces” of Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted movies. (Id.) Despite obtaining 

Doe Defendant’s IP address, Plaintiff cannot correlate the IP address to its subscriber and 

identify the Doe Defendant. (See Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 14, ECF No. 

4.) The Court therefore finds that Strike 3 Holdings made a good faith effort to identify 

and locate the Defendant. 

C. Whether Plaintiff’s Suit Could Withstand a Motion to Dismiss 

Strike 3 Holdings must also show that its suit could withstand a motion to dismiss. 

See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. A claim may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 

12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for 

failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). Plaintiff’s Complaint states that 

the “Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 11
8 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(federal question)[] and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (jurisdiction over copyright actions)[,]” and 

alleges a cause of action for direct copyright infringement. (Compl. 2, 6-8, ECF No. 1.) 

To prevail on a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must establish “ (1) ownership of 

a valid copyright; and (2) that the defendant violated the copyright owner’s exclusive 

rights under the Copyright Act.” Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 

2004) (citations omitted); see also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657, 666 

(9th Cir. 2017) (“[D]irect infringement requires the plaintiff to show causation (also 

referred to as ‘volitional conduct’) by the defendant.”).

Strike 3 Holdings asserts ownership over the forty-seven copyrighted works that 

are the subject of this suit and claims that the works “have either been registered with the 

United States Copyright Office or have pending copyright registrations.” (Compl. 1, 6, 

ECF No. 1; see also id. Attach. #2 Ex. A, at 1-3.) It maintains that for the works “that are 

still pending registration, a complete application, fees, and deposit materials for copyright 

registration have been received by the Copyright Office in compliance with the Copyright 

Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.” (Compl. 6, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff further alleges that 

between June 19, 2017, and November 15, 2018, Doe Defendant infringed its copyrighted 

works by using the BitTorrent file distribution network “to illegally download and 

distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted motion pictures.” (See id. at 5-6; see also id. Attach. #2 

Ex. A, at 1-3.) Strike 3 Holdings provides evidence that the device using IP address 

66.75.47.164 distributed multiple pieces of Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted motion 

pictures; and the distributed pieces, when reassembled, constitute a “fully playable digital 

movie.” (Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #2 Decl. Fieser 12, ECF No. 4.) Additionally, Plaintiff 

has verified that each allegedly infringing digital file is a copy of one of its motion 

pictures. (See Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #2 Decl. Stalzer 19-20, ECF No. 4.) Strike 3 

Holdings has alleged the prima facie elements of direct copyright infringement, and its 

Complaint will likely withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 11
9 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A case can also be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over a defendant or 

for improper venue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (3). In order to survive a motion to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a “prima facie 

showing of jurisdictional facts.” Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In copyright infringement actions, venue is proper “in the district in which the 

defendant or his agent resides or may be found.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1400(a) (West 2019). 

An individual “resides” for venue purposes in the district of his domicile. 17 James Wm. 

Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 110.39[2], at 110-74 (3d ed. 2017). For venue 

purposes, a defendant is “found” where he is subject to personal jurisdiction. Id. at 110-

75 (footnote omitted); see also Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 

1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2010) (“This circuit interprets [28 U.S.C. § 1400(a)] to allow venue 

in any judicial district where, if treated as a separate state, the defendant would be subject 

to personal jurisdiction.”). 

Strike 3 Holdings alleges that it used geolocation technology to determine that Doe 

Defendant’s IP address traced to a physical address in the Southern District of California. 

(See Decl. Kennedy Supp. Ex Parte Appl. 2, ECF No. 6; see also Compl. 2-3, ECF No. 1; 

Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 12-13, ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has therefore 

alleged facts that are likely to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction or improper venue. 

D. Whether Requested Discovery Will Lead to Identifying Information

Finally, Strike 3 Holdings is required to demonstrate that the requested discovery 

will lead to identifying information about the Defendant that would make service of 

process possible. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 580. As discussed above, 

Plaintiff’s investigation revealed a unique IP address 66.75.47.164, and Defendant’s ISP, 

Spectrum, is the only entity that may correlate the IP address to its subscriber. (See Ex 

Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 13-14, ECF No. 4.) The requested Rule 45 

subpoena would lead to information making physical service of process possible. 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 11
10 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds good cause and GRANTS the

Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) 

Conference [ECF No. 4] as follows: 

1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 45 on Spectrum, seeking only the name and address of the subscriber 

assigned the IP address 66.75.47.164. Strike 3 Holdings may not subpoena additional 

information about the subscriber; 

2. Plaintiff may only use the disclosed information to protect its copyrights in 

pursuing this litigation; 

3. Within fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena, Spectrum 

shall notify the subscriber assigned the IP address 66.75.47.164 that his, her, or its 

identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff; 

4. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have thirty (30) 

calendar days from the date of the notice to challenge the disclosure of his, her, or its 

name and address by filing an appropriate pleading with this Court contesting the 

subpoena;

 5. If Spectrum wishes to move to quash the subpoena, it shall do so before the 

return date of the subpoena. The return date of the subpoena must allow for at least 

forty-five (45) days from service to production. If a motion to quash or other customer 

challenge is brought, Spectrum shall preserve the information sought by Plaintiff in the 

subpoena pending resolution of the motion or challenge; 

6. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with any subpoena obtained and 

served pursuant to this Order to Spectrum; 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 11
11 

19cv0074-BAS(RBB) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7. Spectrum must provide a copy of this Order along with the required notice to 

the subscriber whose identity is sought pursuant to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 7, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-00074-BAS-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 11