Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02716/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02716-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

18-cv-2716-WQH-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

JOHN DOE - subscriber assigned 

IP address 99.113.197.159, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 18-cv-2716-WQH-MDD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

EARLY DISCOVERY 

[ECF NO. 4]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Serve a 

Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference filed on November 30,

2018. (ECF No. 4). No Defendant has been named or served. For the 

reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against “John Doe,” 

allegedly a subscriber of AT&T U-verse assigned IP address 99.113.197.159 

(“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges direct copyright infringement 

against Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that it is the registered copyright holder 

of certain copyrighted works alleged to have been infringed by Defendant. 

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18-cv-2716-WQH-MDD

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

Plaintiff contends Defendant used the BitTorrent file distribution network to 

copy and distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted works through the Internet 

without Plaintiff’s permission. (Id.) 

Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct early discovery to learn the identity of 

the subscriber of the subject Internet Protocol (“IP”) address from the 

Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) who leased that IP address to its subscriber 

during the relevant period. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order permitting it 

to serve a third-party subpoena, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on AT&T Uverse requiring the ISP to supply the name and address of its subscriber to 

Plaintiff. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Formal discovery generally 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). “[H]owever, 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)). Requests for early or expedited discovery are granted upon a 

showing of good cause by the moving party. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo 

Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (applying “the 

conventional standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff’s request for 

expedited discovery”). 

“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 

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18-cv-2716-WQH-MDD

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

would be dismissed on other grounds.’” 808 Holdings, LLC v. Collective of 

December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12-cv-0186 MMA (RBB), 2012 WL 

1648838, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (quoting 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., 185 F.R.D. at 578 (citing Wells Fargo 

& Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)). 

District courts apply a three-factor test when considering 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 plaintiff “should identify 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 to the Court’s 

satisfaction that plaintiff’s suit against defendant could withstand a motion 

to dismiss.” Id. (citing Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642). Further “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 and for which there is a reasonable likelihood that the discovery 

process will lead to identifying information about defendant that would make 

service of process possible.” Id. at 580. 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity

Plaintiff must identify Defendant with enough specificity to enable the 

Court to determine that Defendant is a real person or entity who would be 

subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578. 

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18-cv-2716-WQH-MDD

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

“[A] plaintiff identifies Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by providing 

the unique IP addresses assigned to an individual 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, 2012 WL 

1648838, at *4 (quoting OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. C-11-3311 

MEJ, 2011 WL 4715200 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); Pink Lotus Entm’t, LLC v. 

Does 1-46, No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011 WL 2470986 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 

2011)). 

Regarding venue, the Complaint alleges:

9. Plaintiff used IP address geolocation technology by Maxmind 

Inc. (“Maxmind”), an industry-leading provider of IP address 

intelligence and online fraud detection tools, to determine that 

Defendant’s IP address traced to a physical address in this 

District. Over 5,000 companies, along with United States federal 

and state law enforcement, use Maxmind’s GeoIP data to locate 

Internet visitors, perform analytics, enforce digital rights, and 

efficiently route Internet traffic.

10. In order to ensure that Defendant’s IP address accurately traced to 

this District, Plaintiff inputted Defendant’s IP address into Maxmind’s 

GeoIP database twice: first when it learned of the infringement and 

again, just prior to filing this action.

(ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 9-10). Attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint is a chart 

reflecting the IP address alleged to be involved in the illegal downloads, the 

identity of the infringed works, the date and time of the downloads and a 

reference to the ISP (AT&T U-verse) and location (San Diego, CA). (ECF No. 

1-2). 

In its Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed in support of this 

Motion, Plaintiff again asserts that it employed geolocation technology to 

trace the physical address of the offending IP address within this jurisdiction. 

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18-cv-2716-WQH-MDD

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

(ECF No. 4-1 at 12-13).1 Plaintiff supports its Motion with four Declarations, 

none of which address geolocation. Two of the Declarations are from 

technical investigators, Tobias Feiser, identified as an employee of a company 

that provides forensic investigation services to copyright holders, and Philip 

Pasquale, identified as a technical advisor to a cybersecurity company. (ECF 

No. 4-2, Exhs. B, C). Neither address geolocation. Plaintiff also supplied the 

Declaration of Susan B. Stalzer who states that she conducted a public search 

tying the allegedly offending IP address to the identified ISP. (ECF No. 4-2, 

Exh. D ¶11). She also does not address geolocation. 

Allegations are not evidence and are insufficient to Plaintiff’s purpose. 

See Luken v. Christensen Group, Inc., No. C16-5214-RBL, 2016 WL 5920092 

*2 (W.D. Wa. Oct. 11, 2016). Plaintiff knows that it must support its Motion 

with evidence – it supplied evidence regarding ownership of the copyrighted 

material, regarding the allegedly illegal downloads of its protected content 

and regarding the identity of the ISP. Its failure to include evidence 

regarding geolocation is inexplicable. This is especially so considering that 

this very Court addressed this very issue in denying an identical motion by 

Plaintiff regarding a different IP address on February 15, 2018, in Strike 3 

Holdings v. John Doe, Civil No. 18-cv-0230-AJB-MDD, ECF No. 5. 

Plaintiff should have supported its motion with a competent declaration 

explaining its use of geolocation technology to discern that the subscriber of 

the subject IP address is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and the 

timing of the geolocation. The failure of the motion to provide any evidence, 

in the form of declarations, that the subscriber of the subject IP address 

 

1 The Court will refer to pagination supplied by CM/ECF rather than original pagination 

throughout.

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18-cv-2716-WQH-MDD

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

around the time of the alleged unlawful downloads was likely located within 

the jurisdiction of the Court is fatal. See Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe, 

No. C-16-01006-WHA, 2016 WL 3383830 *4 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016). 

Accordingly, the motion must be denied. As a consequence of this ruling, the 

Court will not address the remaining factors at this time. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Early 

Discovery is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6