Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03670/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03670-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP 

ADDRESS 73.15.182.57,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-03670-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 

SERVE A THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA 

PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) 

CONFERENCE

[Re: ECF 6]

Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC has filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a 

Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Ex Parte Applic., ECF 6. The application 

is GRANTED for the reasons discussed below.

 I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff produces and distributes adult motion pictures through internet subscriptions and 

DVDs. Lansky Decl. ¶¶ 3, 15-17, Exh. A to Ex Parte Applic., ECF 6-1. When Plaintiff puts 

videos online for its paid members to view, they often are illegally downloaded and made 

available to others. Lansky Decl. ¶ 23. Plaintiff hired a forensic investigation services company, 

IPP International UG (“IPP”), to monitor and record online infringement of its movies. Fieser 

Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Exh. B. to Ex Parte Applic., ECF 6-1. IPP determined that someone using the 

Internet Protocol (“IP”) address 73.15.182.57 was distributing Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies. 

Fieser Decl. ¶¶ 6-10. Plaintiff retained a cyber security firm, 7 River Systems, LLC, to determine 

the identity of the subscriber of IP address 73.15.182.57. Pasquale Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, Exh. C to Ex 

Parte Applic., ECF 6-1. 7 River Systems determined that the Doe defendant’s internet service 

provider, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC is the only entity that can correlate the IP address 

Case 5:19-cv-03670-BLF Document 7 Filed 07/17/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

to its subscriber and provide the identity of the subscriber. Pasquale Decl. ¶ 10. Plaintiff was able 

to trace the IP address to a location in Antioch, California, which is within this Court’s 

jurisdiction. Kennedy Decl. ¶¶ 4-7, Exh. E to Ex Parte Applic., ECF 6-1. 

Plaintiff filed this copyright action on June 24, 2019, alleging that “John Doe subscriber 

assigned IP address 73.15.182.57” is engaging in “ongoing and wholesale copyright infringement” 

by downloading Plaintiff’s motion pictures and distributing them to others. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 4. 

Plaintiff now seeks leave to take early discovery, specifically, to serve a third party subpoena on 

Comcast Cable seeking the identity of the John Doe subscriber.

 II. LEGAL STANDARD

In general, “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have 

conferred as required by Rule 26(f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). However, “[a] court may authorize 

early discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and 

in the interests of justice.” G.N. Iheaku & Co. Ltd. v. Does 1-3, No. C 14-02069 LB, 2014 WL 

2759075, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2014). “Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally consider 

whether a plaintiff has shown ‘good cause’ for the early discovery.” Id. (collecting cases). 

“To determine whether there is ‘good cause’ to permit expedited discovery to identify doe 

defendants, courts commonly consider whether: (1) the plaintiff can 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; (2) the plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken to 

locate the elusive defendant; (3) the plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a motion to 

dismiss; and (4) the plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood of being able to 

identify the defendant through discovery such that service of process would be possible.” Dallas 

Buyers Club LLC v. Doe-69.181.52.57, No. 16-CV-01164-JSC, 2016 WL 4259116, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 12, 2016) (citations omitted). 

When the plaintiff does not know the identities of defendants, “the plaintiff should be 

given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that 

discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other 

grounds.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 5:19-cv-03670-BLF Document 7 Filed 07/17/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

 III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing as to all four factors to establish good cause for the 

requested early discovery. First, Plaintiff has identified the missing defendant with sufficient 

particularity to show that the defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in this Court. 

Second, Plaintiff has described the steps it has taken to identify the IP subscriber. Those steps, 

which included hiring a forensic investigation services company and a cyber security firm, are 

documented in the several declaration submitted in support of Plaintiff’s ex parte application. See

Exhs. A-E to Ex Parte Applic., ECF 6-1. 

Third, Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. The 

complaint contains a single claim for direct copyright infringement. Compl., ECF 1. That claim 

has two elements: (1) ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) violation of at least 

one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106. Perfect 10, Inc. v. 

Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007). Among the exclusive rights set forth in §

106 are the rights to reproduce, sell to the public, or display to the public a copyrighted work. 17 

U.S.C. § 106. Plaintiff alleges that it holds the copyrights to adult motion pictures that the Doe 

defendant downloaded and distributed without permission. Compl. ¶¶ 36-39, ECF 1. Those 

allegations are sufficient to state a claim of direct copyright infringement.

Fourth and finally, Plaintiff has provided the declaration of a cyber security expert, stating 

that Comcast Cable is the only entity that can identify the subscriber of the IP address 

73.15.182.57. Pasquale Decl. ¶ 10, Exh. C to Ex Parte Applic., ECF 6-1.

In other cases like this one, involving adult content, some district courts have found it 

appropriate to issue a sua sponte protective order. For example, when Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings 

obtained leave to take early discovery in another copyright case brought in this district, the court 

sua sponte issued a protective order directing Plaintiff to treat information regarding the Doe 

defendant as confidential for a limited period of time, until the Doe defendant had an opportunity 

to file a motion for leave to proceed anonymously. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 17-

CV-07051-LB, 2018 WL 357287, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2018). Plaintiff does not object to 

issuance of a sua sponte protective order in this case. Ex Parte Applic. at 13, ECF 6.

Case 5:19-cv-03670-BLF Document 7 Filed 07/17/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to serve a third 

party subpoena on the Doe defendant’s internet service provider, Comcast Cable. The Court sua 

sponte orders that any information Plaintiff obtains regarding the Doe defendant shall be treated as 

confidential until the Doe defendant has an opportunity to file a motion for a protective order or a 

motion for leave to proceed anonymously.

 IV. ORDER

 (1) Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to 

a Rule 26(f) Conference is GRANTED; 

(2) This order is without prejudice to the rights of the third party to move to quash the 

subpoena or to respond to the subpoena in any other manner permitted by law;

(3) The Court sua sponte issues a limited protective order directing that any 

information Plaintiff obtains regarding the Doe defendant shall be treated as confidential until the 

Doe defendant has an opportunity to file a motion for a protective order or a motion for leave to 

proceed anonymously; and

(4) Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to read and comply with this Court’s Standing Order 

Re Civil Cases in all future filings. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application exceeds this Court’s 10-page 

limit and it does not comply with this Court’s requirements regarding use of footnotes. Given the 

nature and urgency of Plaintiff’s application, the Court chose not to strike it. However, failure to 

comply with the Standing Order Re Civil Cases in the future may result in non-compliant filings 

being stricken. 

Dated: July 17, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-03670-BLF Document 7 Filed 07/17/19 Page 4 of 4