Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01096/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01096-0/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 76.14.42.5,

Defendant.

Case No.19-cv-01096-EJD (VKD)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE

TO SERVE SUBPOENA

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Strike 3”) seeks leave to serve a third-party subpoena on 

WaveDivision Holdings, LLC (“Wave Broadband”) prior to a Rule 26(f) conference.

Strike 3 has established that good cause exists for it to serve a third-party subpoena on 

Wave Broadband, the above-referenced subscriber’s internet service provider. See Gillespie v. 

Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980); UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe, No. C08-1193 SBA, 

2008 WL 4104214, at *4 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2008). Strike 3 has demonstrated that (1) it can 

identify the defendant 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) it has identified 

previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant, (3) its action against the defendant could 

withstand a motion to dismiss, and (4) there is a reasonable likelihood of being able to identify the 

defendant through discovery such that service of process would be possible. See Columbia Ins. 

Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Additionally, Strike 3’s 

application indicates that Strike 3 has satisfied the registration requirements under 17 U.S.C. 

§ 411(a) for commencing a copyright infringement lawsuit. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. 

Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019). Once Strike 3 learns the defendant’s identity, it 

cannot rely on a bare allegation that a defendant is the registered subscriber of an internet protocol

Case 5:19-cv-01096-EJD Document 8 Filed 04/02/19 Page 1 of 2
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

address associated with infringing activity to state a plausible claim for direct or contributory 

copyright infringement. Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales, 901 F.3d 1142, 1144 (9th Cir. 2018). 

However, at this stage of these proceedings, and upon the record presented, Strike 3 properly may 

serve discovery to ascertain the defendant’s identity. See generally Glacier Films (USA), Inc. v. 

Turchin, 896 F.3d 1033, 1036, 1038 (9th Cir. 2018) (observing that the district court’s case 

management order permitting “limited discovery from an Internet Service Provider to establish a 

potential infringer’s identity” was “a sensible way to manage its dockets . . . .”).

Accordingly, the Court grants Strike 3’s application and orders as follows:

1. Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Wave Broadband commanding Wave 

Broadband to provide Strike 3 with the true name and address of the subscriber to whom Wave 

Broadband assigned IP address 76.14.42.5. Strike 3 shall attach a copy of this order to any such 

subpoena.

2. Wave Broadband shall serve a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this order on the 

subscriber within 30 days of the date of service of the subpoena on Wave Broadband. Wave 

Broadband may serve the subscriber using any reasonable means, including written notice sent to 

the subscriber’s last known address, transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service.

3. Strike 3 may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena 

served on Wave Broadband for the purpose of protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights as set 

forth in its complaint.

4. Wave Broadband may object to the Rule 45 subpoena, and may also seek a 

protective order.

If Wave Broadband produces information regarding the identity of the subscriber to Strike 

3, Strike 3 shall not publicly disclose that information absent consent of the subscriber or leave of 

court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-01096-EJD Document 8 Filed 04/02/19 Page 2 of 2