Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00073/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00073-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

19-CV-73-WQH-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 70.95.181.51,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-73-WQH-WVG

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

CONDUCT EXPEDITED 

DISCOVERY 

[ECF No. 4.]

Plaintiff claims to hold copyrights to four movies. 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 Spectrum 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 10, 2019 asserting a single claim for copyright 

infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The instant motion was filed on January 30, 

2019. No defendant has been served. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that between March 

2, 2018 and November 15, 2018 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 3:19-cv-00073-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

19-CV-73-WQH-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 70.95.181.51 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 3:19-cv-00073-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

19-CV-73-WQH-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. Doe-

 

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 3:19-cv-00073-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

19-CV-73-WQH-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

72.220.214.236, 2016 WL 1324424, at *4 (S.D. Cal. April 5, 2016). Plaintiff accordingly 

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 March 2, 2018 and November 15, 2018 an individual or entity using 

IP address 70.95.181.51 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 ¶ 13.) Plaintiff has shown that the discovery sought 

is reasonably likely to lead to the missing defendant.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Once Strike 3 learns the subscriber’s identity, it cannot rely on a bare allegation that 

he or she is the registered subscriber of an IP 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 

Case 3:19-cv-00073-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

19-CV-73-WQH-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

proceedings, and upon the record presented, Strike 3 properly may serve discovery to 

ascertain the potential 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 . . . .”).

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

orders that:

a. Plaintiff may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Spectrum seeking only the true 

name and address of the subscriber associated with the IP address 

70.95.181.51 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, Spectrum 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 Spectrum 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, Spectrum 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 Spectrum along with its subpoena. 

Spectrum, in turn, must provide a copy of this order along with the required 

notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought.

Case 3:19-cv-00073-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

19-CV-73-WQH-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

f. Once Plaintiff learns the identity of the subscriber(s), Plaintiff shall provide a 

copy of this Order to that person or those persons when Plaintiff first makes 

contact with the subscriber regarding this case. At that same time, Plaintiff 

shall also provide the subscriber(s) a copy of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in 

Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales, 901 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2018). Once both 

have been provided to the subscriber(s), counsel for Plaintiff shall

immediately file a declaration that confirms these have been provided to the 

subscriber.

g. Plaintiff and Spectrum shall henceforth refer to the subscriber as “John/Jane 

Doe” and shall redact and omit from all future filings all information that 

identifies the subscriber personally. Such identifying information includes the 

subscriber’s name and address, unless and until the subscriber becomes a 

defendant in the above-captioned case. Plaintiff and Spectrum shall refer to 

the subscriber generically in any filings and attach—under seal—a separate 

exhibit that includes the subscriber’s identifying information

h. The subscriber may initially proceed anonymously as “John/Jane Doe” until 

such time that there is sufficient proof before the Court that the subscriber is 

connected with the alleged infringement.

i. Plaintiff may not engage in any settlement discussions with the subscriber 

unless and until the subscriber has been served with the Complaint and the 

documents set forth in paragraph (f), above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00073-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6