Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00989/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00989-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

18-cv-0989-DMS-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE - subscriber assigned 

IP address 70.95.15.15,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 18-cv-0989-DMS-MDD

ORDER GRANTING 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 June 28, 

2018. (ECF No. 4). The Complaint was filed on May 17, 2018, and alleges 

that the subscriber of the referenced Internet Protocol address has infringed 

Plaintiff’s copyrights by downloading and distributing approximately 31 

motion pictures. (ECF No. 1). This Motion seeks leave of Court to serve a 

subpoena on the Internet Service Provider that owns the referenced 

Internet Protocol address to determine which of its subscribers leased the 

address during the relevant period. 

Case 3:18-cv-00989-DMS-MDD Document 5 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18-cv-0989-DMS-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

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 by the moving party of good cause. 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 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 

Case 3:18-cv-00989-DMS-MDD Document 5 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18-cv-0989-DMS-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

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. 

II. ANALYSIS

Upon review of the motion and its supporting declarations, the Court 

finds Plaintiff has sustained its evidentiary burden and shown good cause to 

subpoena records from Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) identifying the 

subscriber assigned to the subject IP address at the identified times. The 

subpoena must be limited to documents identifying the subscriber’s name 

and address during the relevant period. That information should be 

sufficient for Plaintiff to be able to identify and serve Defendant. If Plaintiff 

is unable to identify and serve Defendant after receiving a response to the 

subpoena, Plaintiff may seek leave from the Court to pursue additional 

discovery. 

Case 3:18-cv-00989-DMS-MDD Document 5 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18-cv-0989-DMS-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

The Court also must consider the requirements of the Cable Privacy 

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551. The Act generally prohibits cable operators from 

disclosing personally identifiable information regarding subscribers without 

the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber. 47 U.S.C. § 

551(c)(1). A cable operator, however, may disclose such information if 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)(2)(B). The ISP 

that Plaintiff intends to subpoena in this case is a cable operator within the 

meaning of the Act. 

III. CONCLUSION

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

Discovery is GRANTED, as follows:

1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena, pursuant to and compliant with 

the procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on Spectrum (Time Warner Cable)

seeking only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the subject 

IP address for the relevant time period. 

2. The subpoena must provide at least forty-five (45) calendar days 

from service to production. Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) may seek to 

quash or modify the subpoena as provided at Rule 45(d)(3). 

3. Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) shall notify its subscriber, no 

later than fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena, that his 

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

identity has been subpoenaed shall then have thirty (30) calendar days from 

the date of the notice to seek a protective order, to move to quash or modify 

the subpoena or file any other responsive pleading. 

4. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with the subpoena upon

Case 3:18-cv-00989-DMS-MDD Document 5 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18-cv-0989-DMS-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

Spectrum (Time Warner Cable). 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.

5. No other discovery is authorized at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 5, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00989-DMS-MDD Document 5 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5