Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02716/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02716-1/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 GRANTING RENEWED

MOTION FOR EARLY 

DISCOVERY 

[ECF NO. 6]

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. 

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 first filed a motion for leave to take early discovery on 

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

December 6, 2019. (ECF No. 4). That motion was denied by the Court 

because Plaintiff failed to provide evidentiary support, in the form of a 

declaration, for its allegation that the subscriber of the suspect Internet 

Protocol (“IP”) address likely is located in this district and subject to the 

jurisdiction of the Court. (ECF No. 5).

On February 14, 2019, Plaintiff renewed its motion seeking an order 

permitting it to serve a third-party subpoena, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, 

on Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) AT&T U-verse requiring the ISP to 

supply the name and address of its subscriber to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 6).

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 

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

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

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

With its renewed motion, Plaintiff has provided the Declaration of 

Emilie Kennedy documenting the use of geolocation technology sufficient to 

demonstrate that the subscriber of the offending IP address likely is resident 

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

in this District. (ECF No. 6-2 at 22-24).1 Upon review of the renewed motion 

and its supporting declarations, the Court finds Plaintiff now has sustained 

its evidentiary burden and shown good cause to subpoena records from the 

ISP 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. 

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. 

IV. CONCLUSION

IV. 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 

 

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

pagination throughout.

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

the procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, on the ISP, AT&T U-verse, 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. The ISP may seek to quash or modify the 

subpoena as provided at Rule 45(d)(3). 

3. The ISP 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

the ISP. The ISP, 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: March 6, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02716-WQH-MDD Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5