Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00032/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00032-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

18-CV-32-JLS(WVG) 

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. 

DOE 68.72.213.5, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 18-CV-32-JLS(WVG) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

CONDUCT EXPEDITED 

DISCOVERY 

[ECF No. 4.] 

Plaintiff claims to hold copyrights to the movies Tushy, Blacked, and Vixen. Plaintiff 

now moves ex parte for an order permitting it to conduct discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) 

conference and serve a subpoena on AT&T Inc./AT&T U-Verse to ascertain the identity 

of an unknown individual who allegedly has infringed its copyrights. For the reasons that 

follow, and on the terms specified in this Order, the Court GRANTS the motion.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 4, 2018 asserting a single claim for copyright 

infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The instant motion was filed on January 25, 

2018. No defendant has been served. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that between June 

18, 2017 and October 28, 2017 the Doe defendant used the BitTorrent peer-to-peer 

distribution network to copy and distribute the subject works over the internet without 

Plaintiff’s authorization. Data provided by an investigator identified the Internet Protocol 

Case 3:18-cv-00032-JLS-WVG Document 5 Filed 01/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

18-CV-32-JLS(WVG) 

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

(“IP”) address associated with the infringing activity as 68.72.213.5 and San Diego as the 

location of the infringing activity.1

 However, Plaintiff cannot proceed further in this case 

without the identity of the person associated with the IP address above.

A party ordinarily may not seek discovery from any source prior to the Rule 26(f) 

conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). However, the Court may order expedited discovery, 

and courts within this Circuit issue such orders on a showing of good cause. See Semitol, 

Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Cobbler 

Nevada, LLC v. Doe-68.8.213.203, 2015 WL 9026554, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2015). 

One situation in which early discovery may be necessary appears in cases in which the 

defendant’s identity cannot be determined at the time the action is commenced. The Ninth 

Circuit has held that “[i]n such circumstances, 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). Courts accordingly have 

required a party to meet four requirements before granting leave to use expedited discovery 

to uncover the identity of an unknown defendant: (1) The party must “identify the missing 

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

real person or entity who could be sued in federal court;” (2) the party must demonstrate 

that it has made good faith attempts to identify and serve the defendant; (3) the party must 

show that the lawsuit could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) the party must show that 

the discovery is reasonably likely to lead to identifying information that will permit service 

of process. Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999); 

Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Doe-73.202.228.252, 2016 WL 1138960, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

March 23, 2016); Uber Techs., Inc. v. Doe, 2015 WL 4451372, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 

2015). Plaintiff has met each of these requirements. 

                                                                

1

 The Court has confirmed that San Diego is this IP address’s location via 

www.iplocation.net. 

Case 3:18-cv-00032-JLS-WVG Document 5 Filed 01/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

18-CV-32-JLS(WVG) 

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

Plaintiff must first identify the missing defendant with sufficient specificity so that 

the Court can determine whether the defendant is a real person or entity who can be sued 

in federal court. “[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.” Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-68.101.166.122, 

2016 WL 2343912, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2016). Here, Plaintiff has identified the unique 

IP address associated with the allegedly infringing conduct and has identified the dates of 

the infringing conduct. Plaintiff has also 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.” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 9.)2

 Plaintiff has therefore provided the Court 

sufficient basis to conclude that the defendant is a real person or entity who may be sued 

in federal court.

Plaintiff must also demonstrate that it has made good faith efforts to identify and 

serve the defendant. Plaintiff has explained the steps that it has taken to uncover the IP 

address allegedly used to infringe its copyrights, and the requested discovery is the only 

means available to it of obtaining information that may lead to the identification of the Doe 

defendant. Although not discussed in Plaintiff’s moving papers, the Court notes that the 

Cable Privacy Act generally prohibits cable operators from disclosing personally 

identifiable information concerning subscribers without the prior consent of the subscriber 

unless the disclosure is made pursuant to a court order and the cable operator provides the 

subscriber with notice of the order. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c); see QOTD Film Invest. Ltd. v. Doe72.220.214.236, 2016 WL 1324424, at *4 (S.D. Cal. April 5, 2016). Plaintiff accordingly 

                                                                

2

 By signing the complaint, counsel for Strike 3 Holdings LLC has represented that the 

factual contentions therein, including Plaintiff’s use of geolocation technology to link the 

IP address to this District, “have evidentiary support.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). 

Case 3:18-cv-00032-JLS-WVG Document 5 Filed 01/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

18-CV-32-JLS(WVG) 

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

is unlikely to be able to obtain the information it seeks without assistance from the Court. 

Plaintiff is also required to show that the Complaint could survive a motion to 

dismiss. The Complaint in this case asserts a single claim of direct copyright infringement. 

To establish a prima facie case, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) ownership of a valid 

copyright and (2) that Defendant violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights under the 

Copyright Act. See Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 17 

U.S.C. § 501(a)). Plaintiff purports to hold rights to the copyrighted works at issue and 

alleges that between June 18, 2017 and October 28, 2017, an individual or entity using IP 

address 68.72.213.5 infringed its copyright by copying and distributing the work over the 

internet without its permission or consent. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has 

alleged the prima facie elements of direct copyright infringement. Further, by alleging that 

the defendant is believed to reside and to have committed the infringing acts in this District, 

Plaintiff has made a plausible showing that this Court may establish personal jurisdiction 

and that venue is proper. The Court finds that Plaintiff would likely survive a motion to 

dismiss. 

Finally, Plaintiff must show that the discovery sought is reasonably likely to lead to 

information that will permit Plaintiff to identify and serve the Doe defendant. Plaintiff 

requests permission to use a Rule 45 subpoena to ascertain the identity of the subscriber 

associated with the subject IP address during the period of the allegedly infringing conduct. 

Plaintiff contends that the “Defendant’s name and address can be provided by Defendant’s 

Internet Service Provider.” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 12.) Plaintiff has shown that the discovery sought 

is reasonably likely to lead to the missing defendant. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Finding good cause, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery and 

orders that: 

a. Plaintiff may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T Inc./AT&T U-Verse 

seeking only the true name and address of the subscriber associated with the 

Case 3:18-cv-00032-JLS-WVG Document 5 Filed 01/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

18-CV-32-JLS(WVG) 

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

IP address 68.72.213.5 during the time period of the allegedly infringing 

conduct described in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

b. Plaintiff may not use information disclosed in response to the subpoena for 

any purpose other than the protection of its rights in this litigation. 

c. Within fourteen calendar days after service of the subpoena, AT&T 

Inc./AT&T U-Verse shall notify the subscriber that its identifying information 

has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The subscriber whose identity has been 

subpoenaed shall have thirty calendar days from the date of such notice to 

challenge the disclosure of its information. 

d. If AT&T Inc./AT&T U-Verse 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 days between service and production. If a 

motion to quash or other customer challenge is brought, AT&T Inc./AT&T 

U-Verse shall preserve the information sought by Plaintiff in the subpoena 

pending resolution of such motion or challenge. 

e. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on AT&T Inc./AT&T U-Verse along 

with its subpoena. AT&T Inc./AT&T U-Verse, in turn, must provide a copy 

of this order along with the required notice to the subscriber whose identity is 

sought. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 31, 2018 

Case 3:18-cv-00032-JLS-WVG Document 5 Filed 01/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5