Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00167/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00167-1/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

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP 

ADDRESS 76.103.77.3,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:19-cv-00167-KAW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

QUASH

Re: Dkt. No. 11

On March 28, 2019, Defendant John Doe filed a motion to quash a subpoena that Plaintiff 

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC issued to his internet service provider (“ISP”), Comcast Cable 

Communications (“Comcast”), seeking the subscriber information for the IP address that Plaintiff 

has connected to the alleged infringement of its copyrights in pornographic films. 

Upon review of the moving papers, the Court finds that the motion can be resolved without 

oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7(b), and DENIES Defendant’s motion to quash the 

subpoena and orders Plaintiff to serve a copy of this order on Comcast.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC has filed dozens of copyright infringement cases in this 

district pertaining to its ownership of adult-content movies distributed through its websites. 

(Compl., Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 2-3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has used the BitTorrent protocol to 

download and distribute Plaintiff’s movies to others in violation of Plaintiff’s copyrights in the 

material. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Specifically, Defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s copyrights in 99 movies 

over an extended period of time. (Id., Compl., Ex. A.) Defendant is known to Plaintiff only by his 

IP address 76.103.77.3, which is maintained by Comcast. (Compl. ¶ 5.) 

On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed the complaint. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an ex parte 

Case 4:19-cv-00167-KAW Document 15 Filed 04/25/19 Page 1 of 4
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

application for leave to serve an early third-party subpoena on Comcast in order to identify the 

name and address of the subscriber associated with the IP address connected to the allegedly 

infringing conduct. The Court found that Plaintiff showed good cause to permit early discovery 

and granted permission for Plaintiff to serve the subpoena on Comcast, which included provisions 

to protect the defendant subscriber’s privacy. (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff served a subpoena on 

Comcast, and, on March 28, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to quash the subpoena. (Def.’s Mot., 

Dkt. No. 11.) On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition.1(Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 14.)

Defendant did not file a reply, so the motion is fully briefed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs discovery of non-parties by subpoena. The 

scope of discovery through a Rule 45 subpoena is the same as the scope of discovery permitted 

under Rule 26(b). Beaver Cty. Employers Ret. Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No. 3:16-mc80062-JSC, 2016 WL 3162218, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Advisory 

Comm.'s Note (1970); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, in a 

civil action, a party may obtain discovery “regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to 

any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case considering the importance 

of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to 

relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, 

and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Notwithstanding, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines 

that: “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from 

some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party 

seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; 

or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

 

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition was filed one day late, as it was due on April 11, 

2019. Nonetheless, the undersigned will consider the arguments raised. Counsel is advised that the 

failure to timely file an opposition in the future “shall constitute consent to the granting of the 

motion.” (Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 22.)

Case 4:19-cv-00167-KAW Document 15 Filed 04/25/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

26(b)(2)(C). Rule 45 further provides that “the court for the district where compliance is required 

must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires 

a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure 

of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person 

to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A).

Generally, “a party has no standing to seek to quash a subpoena issued to someone who is 

not a party to the action, unless the objecting party claims some personal right or privilege with 

regard to the documents sought.” Drummond Co., Inc. v. Collingsworth, 2013 WL 6074157, at 

*15 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting 9A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & 

Proc. § 2459 (3d ed. 2008)). If good cause is shown, a court may “issue an order to protect a party 

or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . 

forbidding the disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A).

The moving party bears the burden of persuasion on a motion to quash, but the party 

issuing the subpoena must demonstrate that the discovery is relevant. See, e.g., Chevron Corp. v. 

Donziger, No. 3:12-mc-80237-CRB, 2013 WL 4536808, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) (citation 

omitted); see also Optimize Tech. Solutions, LLC v. Staples, Inc., No. 5:14-mc-80095-LHK, 2014 

WL 1477651, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2014).

III. DISCUSSION

In the motion, Defendant contends that being the target of this civil action is an undue 

burden, because there “is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will be unable to establish that 

Doe was actually the person responsible” for the alleged infringement. (Def.’s Mot. at 1.) 

Defendant also improperly attaches what appears to be a letter from a neighbor stating that he and 

his family have been using Doe’s unsecured wireless internet connection for years to access 

streaming sites, and that he knows that others in their housing complex have used it as well. 

(Def.’s Mot. at 2.) 

In sum, Defendant claims innocence. While this may be true, at this juncture, Plaintiff is 

simply attempting to ascertain the subscriber’s identity, and is, therefore, permitted to subpoena 

the ISP for the defendant’s identifying information, and conduct an initial investigation into the 

Case 4:19-cv-00167-KAW Document 15 Filed 04/25/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

defendant. Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales, 901 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2018). Thus, the fact 

that other people have access to Defendant’s unsecured, wi-fi is immaterial. To the extent that 

Defendant believes that Plaintiff will be unable to prove its case, that argument is similarly 

premature, as Plaintiff is only trying to ascertain the defendant subscriber’s identity.

Even so, Plaintiff contends that the subscriber information is relevant to the case, because, 

while the subscriber is not necessarily the infringer, the only party that Plaintiff knows of with 

continuous access to the IP address is the subscriber defendant. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 6.) Thus, Plaintiff 

needs the subscriber information to conduct a good faith investigation. See id. The Court agrees.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has shown that the subscriber information is relevant, and, since 

Defendant’s claims of noninfringement have no bearing at this juncture, the Court DENIES 

Defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena. 

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00167-KAW Document 15 Filed 04/25/19 Page 4 of 4