Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00235/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00235-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS

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 76.88.7.87,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 

SERVE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA 

PRIOR TO RULE 26(F) 

CONFERENCE

[ECF NO. 4]

Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a Third 

Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2018, Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed its 

Complaint against John Doe subscriber assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) address 

76.88.7.87 (“Doe Defendant”) for copyright infringement. (ECF No. 1.) On February 13, 

2018, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena 

Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference to ascertain the identity of Doe Defendant. (ECF No. 4.) 

In its Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Doe Defendant is liable for direct copyright 

Case 3:18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
2

18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS

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

infringement. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 34-39.

1

) Plaintiff alleges it owns the copyrights for movies 

it distributes through adult websites and DVD sales. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 13.) Plaintiff alleges Doe 

Defendant used BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file sharing system, to copy and distribute its 

movies without consent. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5, 17-38.) To identify the IP address of the Doe

Defendant, Plaintiff hired forensic investigator IPP International U.G. (Id. ¶¶ 24-28.)

As it can only identify the Doe Defendant by the IP address used, Plaintiff requests 

permission to serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena on the Internet Service 

Provider (“ISP”), Spectrum (Time Warner Cable), that issued the IP address to Doe 

Defendant. (ECF No. 4-1 at 6-7.) The proposed subpoena only demands the name and 

address of Doe Defendant, and Plaintiff indicates it will only use this information to 

prosecute claims in the Complaint. (Id.) 

Plaintiff claims good cause exists to grant the Ex Parte Application because: 

(1) Plaintiff has identified Doe Defendant with sufficient specificity through geolocation 

technology and forensic investigation; (2) Plaintiff has identified all previous steps taken 

to locate Doe Defendant; (3) Plaintiff’s Complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss; 

and (4) Plaintiff has established that there is a reasonable likelihood that Plaintiff can 

identify the Doe Defendant and effectuate service. (See id. at 6-17.) 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Cable Privacy Act

The Cable Privacy Act 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. § 551(c)(1). However, a “cable operator 

may disclose such information if the disclosure is . . . made pursuant to a court order 

authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to 

whom the order is directed.” 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). A cable operator is “any person 

 

1 The Court cites to the blue CM/ECF-generated document and page numbers located at the top of each 

page.

Case 3:18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
3

18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS

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

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. § 522(5). 

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

Unless a court order permits discovery, it is not allowed until the parties meet and 

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

determine if early discovery is warranted in a particular case, the court applies a “good 

cause” test by weighing the need for discovery to further justice against the prejudice it 

may cause the opposing party. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 

276 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 17CV2317 JAH (BLM), 

2017 WL 6389848, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2017) (citing Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 274). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that when a defendant’s identity is unknown at the time 

a complaint is filed, courts may grant a plaintiff leave to take early discovery to determine 

the defendant’s identity “unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identit[y], 

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

F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). In determining whether to grant leave for early discovery 

to ascertain a defendant’s identity, district courts consider: (1) whether the plaintiff can 

“identify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the defendant is a real 

person or entity who could be sued in federal court”; (2) whether the plaintiff has described 

“all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant”; (3) whether the “suit against 

defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss”; and (4) whether the requested “discovery 

process would lead to identifying information about [the] defendant that would make 

service of process possible.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-

80 (N.D. Cal. 1999). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Identification of Doe Defendant with Sufficient Specificity

First, Plaintiff must identify Doe Defendant with sufficient specificity to enable the 

Case 3:18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
4

18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS

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

Court to determine Doe Defendant is a real person, subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. 

Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578. To determine whether a doe defendant has been 

identified with sufficient specificity, courts look to whether a plaintiff provided “the unique 

IP address[ ] assigned to an individual defendant on the day of the allegedly infringing 

conduct” and used “‘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, 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). Identifying 

the unique IP address and location of the IP address has been shown to meet the 

requirement for identifying a doe defendant with sufficient specificity. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that between September 22, 2017 and December 3, 2017, Doe 

Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted work via the BitTorrent file distribution 

network. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 23-30, 34-39; ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiff retained IPP International 

UG (“IPP”), a forensic investigation services company, to monitor the BitTorrent file 

distribution network for copyrighted works and identify IP addresses used by infringers to 

distribute copyrighted works within the network. (ECF No. 4-3 ¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff has 

provided a declaration from IPP employee Tobias Fieser (ECF No. 4-3) who determined 

the following: (1) IPP’s servers connected to an electronic device using IP address 

76.88.7.87; (2) the IP address distributed to IPP’s servers “multiple pieces” of Plaintiff’s 

copyrighted movies listed on Exhibit A to the Complaint; and (3) “reassembling the pieces 

using a specialized BitTorrent client results in a fully playable digital movie.” Further, 

Fieser states that files distributed by Doe Defendant’s IP address “have a unique identifier 

of the Cryptographic Hash outlined on Exhibit A [to the Complaint]” and “IP address 

76.88.7.87 is associated with significant long term BitTorrent use.” (ECF No. 4-3 ¶¶ 7-

12.) 

Plaintiff claims that Doe Defendant’s IP address belongs to Spectrum (Time Warner 

Cable) based on the identification of Maxmind Inc., an IP address geolocation technology 

Case 3:18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
5

18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS

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

that numerous federal courts have found to be credible and reliable, and 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.” (ECF 

No. 4-1 at 11-12, 16-17; ECF No. 4-4 ¶ 11; ECF No. 1 ¶ 5.) 

Further, Plaintiff alleges it traced the alleged Doe Defendant’s IP address to this 

District using Maxmind. (ECF No. 4-1 at 12; ECF No. 1 ¶ 9 [“Plaintiff used IP address 

geolocation technology by Maxmind Inc., 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.”].) Plaintiff emphasizes the reliability and 

credibility of Maxmind’s geolocation technology. (See ECF No. 4-1 at 12; ECF No. 1 ¶ 9 

[“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.”].) Courts in this District have historically relied upon 

Maxmind for making such determinations. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 

18CV47-WQH (RBB), 2018 WL 1427002, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2018); Criminal 

Prods., Inc. v. Doe, No. 16-CV-2589 WQH (JLB), 2016 WL 6822186, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 

Nov. 18, 2016) (“The Court concludes that based on the timing of the IP address tracing 

efforts employed by Plaintiff’s investigator, the documented success of the Maxmind 

geolocation service, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts to independently verify the location 

information provided by Plaintiff’s investigator, Plaintiff has met its evidentiary burden

[that jurisdiction is proper]”).

Based on the evidence and information discussed above, Plaintiff has identified the 

unique IP address, location, and time associated with the infringing activity of the alleged 

Doe Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff has identified Doe Defendant with such “sufficient 

specificity” so as to assure the Court that the Defendant is real, subject to the Court’s 

jurisdiction, and able to be sued. Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578.

B. Previous Steps Taken to Locate Defendant

Second, Plaintiff must describe all prior attempts it has made to identify Doe 

Case 3:18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
6

18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS

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 in a good faith effort to locate Doe Defendant and serve process. Columbia Ins., 

185 F.R.D. at 579. 

Here, Plaintiff has asserted that it has searched for Doe Defendant’s IP address using 

various internet search tools; reviewed numerous legislative reports, agency websites, and 

informational technology guides; and hired cyber security consultants and investigators. 

(ECF No. 4-1 at 13.) Plaintiff retained forensic investigation services company IPP to 

identify IP addresses used to distribute its copyrighted works via the BitTorrent file 

distribution network. (ECF No. 4-3 ¶¶4-5, 7.) Despite obtaining Doe Defendant’s IP 

address, Plaintiff is unable to correlate the IP address to its subscriber and has “been unable 

to identify any other way to go about obtaining the identities of its infringers and does not 

know how else it could possibly enforce its copyrights.” (ECF No. 4-1 at 13; see ECF No 

4-4 ¶ 11 [verifying Spectrum (Time Warner) “own[ed] Defendant’s IP address at the time 

of the infringements, and hence has the relevant information to identify Doe Defendant.”].)

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and locate

Doe Defendant. 

C. Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss

Third, Plaintiff must demonstrate that its claim could withstand a motion to dismiss. 

This requires Plaintiff to “make some showing that an act giving rise to civil liability 

actually occurred and that the discovery is aimed at revealing specific identifying features 

of the person or entity who committed that act.” Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 580. 

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), 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s Complaint states the “Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1338 (jurisdiction over copyright actions)[,]” and alleges a cause of action for direct 

copyright infringement. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 6-7, 34-39.) To prevail on a copyright infringement 

claim, Plaintiff must show: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) that the defendant 

violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.” Ellison v. 

Case 3:18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
7

18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS

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

Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 501(a)). 

Here, Plaintiff provides evidence that it is the exclusive rights holder of the 

copyrighted works at issue. (See ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiff asserts ownership over the sixtysix 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.” (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 31-32, 35; ECF No. 1-2.) 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.” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 32.)

Further, Plaintiff alleges that between September 22, 2017 and December 3, 2017, 

Doe Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted work via the BitTorrent file distribution 

network. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 23-30, 34-39; ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiff also alleges that it did not 

permit or consent to Doe Defendant’s copying or distribution of this work. (ECF No. 1 

¶ 37.) Plaintiff provides evidence that the device using the IP address 76.88.7.87 

distributed multiple pieces of Plaintiff’s copyrighted motion pictures, and the distributed 

pieces, when assembled, constitute a “fully playable digital movie.” (ECF No. 4-3 ¶¶ 7-

9.) Additionally, Plaintiff has verified that each digital file is a copy of its motion pictures. 

(See ECF No. 4-4 ¶¶ 7-10.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged the prima facie elements of 

direct copyright infringement and could withstand a motion to dismiss for failure lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction or a failure to state a claim. See Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 

579-80. 

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), 12(b)(3). 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). A court has 

personal jurisdiction over any person residing in the forum state. Brayton v. Purcell LLP 

v. Recordon & Recordon, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citing generally 

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877)). Venue in copyright infringement suits is proper in 

Case 3:18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
8

18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS

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

the district in which the defendant . . . resides or may be found.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (a). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges it used geolocation technology to determine that Doe 

Defendant’s “IP address traced to a physical address in this District”, that “a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District”, and Doe 

Defendant resides in this District. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶8-10; ECF No. 4-1 at 11-14.) Therefore, 

Plaintiff has established the prima facie requirements of personal jurisdiction and venue

and is likely to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper 

venue. 

D. Requested Discovery Will Lead to Identifying Information

Finally, Plaintiff is required to demonstrate that the requested discovery will lead to 

identifying information about Doe Defendant that would make service of process possible. 

See Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 580. As explained above, Plaintiff’s investigation has 

revealed a unique IP address, 76.88.7.87. (See ECF No. 4-1 at 11-13.) Due to the fact that 

the only entity able to correlate an IP address to a specific individual is the ISP, Spectrum 

(Time Warner Cable) (see id. at 13-14), the requested Rule 45 subpoena would lead to 

information making physical service of process possible. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER THEREON

Plaintiff has met its burden of showing good cause and the Ex Parte Application

(ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff may serve Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) with a Rule 45 subpoena 

commanding the ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name and address of the 

subscriber assigned the IP address 76.88.7.87. Plaintiff 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 the service of the subpoena, Spectrum 

(Time Warner Cable) shall notify the subscriber assigned the IP address 

76.88.7.87 that his, her, or its identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. 

Case 3:18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
9

18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS

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

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

calendar days from the date of the notice to seek a protective order or 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 (Time Warner Cable) 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 forty-five (45) calendar days from service to production. If a 

motion to quash or other customer challenge is brought, Spectrum (Time Warner 

Cable) shall preserve the information sought by Plaintiff in the subpoena pending 

resolution of such motion or challenge. 

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

pursuant to this Order to Spectrum (Time Warner Cable). 

7. Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) in turn, must provide a copy of this Order along 

with the required notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought pursuant to 

this Order. 

8. No other discovery is authorized at this time.

Dated: May 7, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00235-BAS-BGS Document 7 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9