Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00079/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00079-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

19cv79-BAS (LL) 

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. 

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP 

address 76.172.95.157, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 19cv79-BAS (LL) 

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD 

PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A 

RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

[ECF No. 6] 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s February 25, 2019 “RENEWED EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO 

A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE.” ECF No. 6. Because the Defendant has not been 

identified, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s 

motion and all supporting documents, the Court GRANTS the motion for the reasons set 

forth below. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff alleges that it “is the owner of original, award winning adult motion pictures 

featured on its subscription-based adult websites.” ECF No. 6-1 at 6. On January 10, 2019, 

Plaintiff filed a complaint against John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.172.95.157 

alleging copyright infringement. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 7 Filed 03/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2 

19cv79-BAS (LL) 

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

has illegally infringed by downloading and distributing twenty-eight of its copyrighted 

movies over the BitTorrent file distribution network for an extended period of time. Id. at 

2, 4. Plaintiff describes the BitTorrent network as a “system designed to quickly distribute 

large files over the Internet.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant, who 

“attempted to hide this theft by infringing Plaintiff’s content anonymously,” can be 

identified by his or her Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), Spectrum, through his or her IP 

address 76.172.95.157. Id. at 2. 

On February 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed its first “Ex Parte Application For Leave To 

Serve A Third Party Subpoena Prior To A Rule 26(f) Conference.” ECF No. 4. The Court 

denied Plaintiff’s request without prejudice. ECF No. 5. On February 25, 2019, Plaintiff 

filed the instant renewed motion. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court 

allowing it to serve a subpoena to Defendant’s ISP seeking Defendant’s true name and 

address pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 so that Plaintiff may serve 

Defendant and prosecute the claims in its complaint. ECF No. 6-1 at 7. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

A. The Cable Privacy Act

The Cable Privacy 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). However, a cable operator 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). A cable 

operator is defined as “any person or group of persons (A) who provides cable service over 

a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in 

such cable system, or (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any 

arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system.” 47 U.S.C. § 522(5). 

B. Early Discovery

A party may not seek discovery from any source before the Rule 26(f) conference 

unless that party first obtains a stipulation or court order permitting early discovery. 

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 7 Filed 03/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3 

19cv79-BAS (LL) 

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the “good cause” standard in 

deciding whether to permit early discovery. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, 

Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (adopting the conventional standard of “good 

cause” in evaluating a request for expedited discovery). Good cause exists “where the need 

for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the 

prejudice to the responding party.” Id. Good cause for expedited discovery has been found 

in cases involving claims of infringement and unfair competition. Id. In infringement cases, 

expedited discovery is frequently limited to allowing plaintiffs to identify Doe defendants. 

See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, No. C-08-03999 RMW, 2008 WL 4104207, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 4, 2008) (granting leave to take expedited discovery for documents that would 

reveal the identity and contact information for each Doe defendant). 

District courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a three-factor test for determining whether 

good cause exists to allow for expedited discovery to identify certain defendants. Columbia 

Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999). First, the plaintiff 

should “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.” 

Id. at 578. Second, the plaintiff must describe “all previous steps taken to locate the elusive 

defendant” to ensure that plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify the defendant. 

Id. at 579. Third, plaintiff should establish that its lawsuit could withstand a motion to 

dismiss. Id. 

III. DISCUSSION 

A. Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity

For the Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff must first identify the Doe 

defendant with sufficient specificity to enable the Court to determine that the Doe 

defendant is a real person subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. Id. at 578. “Some district 

courts in the Ninth Circuit have determined that 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 

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 7 Filed 03/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4 

19cv79-BAS (LL) 

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

technology’ to trace the IP addresses to a physical point of origin.” 808 Holdings, LLC v. 

Collective of Dec. 29, 2011 Sharing Hash E37917C8EEB4585E6421358FF32F29C 

D63C23C91, No. 12CV00186 MMA (RBB), 2012 WL 12884688, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 

2012); see e.g., OpenMind Sols., Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. C 11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 

4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011) (finding plaintiff met its burden to identify the Doe 

defendants with sufficient specificity by identifying the unique IP addresses of individuals 

engaged in BitTorrent protocol and using geolocation technology to trace the IP addresses 

to a point of origin within the state of California); Pink Lotus Entm't, LLC v. Does 1-46, 

No. C-11-02263 HRL, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011) (same). Others 

have found that merely identifying the IP addresses assigned to the defendants on the day 

of the purported infringement is sufficient to satisfy the first factor.” 808 Holdings, LLC, 

2012 WL 12884688, at *4; see e.g., First Time Videos, LLC v. Does, No. C 11-01675 LB, 

2011 WL 1431619, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2011) (“First, First Time Videos has identified 

the Doe defendants with sufficient specificity by submitting a chart listing each of the 

defendants by the IP address assigned to them on the day it alleges the particular defendant 

engaged in the infringing conduct.”). This Court finds the former standard persuasive. 

Here, Plaintiff has provided a declaration from Tobias Fieser, an employee of IPP 

International UG (“IPP”), a company it hired to monitor and record online infringement of 

its movies by “monitor[ing] the BitTorrent file distribution network for the presence of 

copyrighted works” and using software that “identifies Internet Protocol (‘IP’) addresses 

that are being used by infringers to distribute copyrighted works within the BitTorrent File 

Distribution Network.” ECF No. 6-2, Declaration of Tobias Fieser (“Fieser Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-

5. Mr. Fieser states that he determined that Defendant’s IP address of 76.172.95.157 

distributed multiple pieces of Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies and that the address “is 

associated with significant long term BitTorrent use.” Id. ¶¶ 7, 12. He also states that the 

movie pieces were recorded in a packet capture (“PCAP”), a “forensically sound interface 

for recording network traffic.” Id. ¶ 8. Mr. Fieser states that digital files can be identified 

by their Cryptographic Hash Values and that IPP was able to determine that the files being 

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 7 Filed 03/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5 

19cv79-BAS (LL) 

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

distributed by Defendant’s IP address “have a unique identifier of the Cryptographic Hash 

outlined on Exhibit A [to Plaintiff’s complaint].”1

 Id. ¶ 10. 

Plaintiff also provided a declaration from Emilie Kennedy, Plaintiff’s in-house 

counsel, in which Ms. Kennedy states that after Plaintiff received infringement data from 

IPP identifying IP address 76.172.95.157 as infringing its works, the IP address was 

automatically inputted into Maxmind’s Geolocation Database on August 23, 2018, which 

traced it to a location in San Diego, California. ECF No. 6-2, Declaration of Emilie 

Kennedy (“Kennedy Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-5. Ms. Kennedy states that Plaintiff also inputted the IP 

address into Maxmind prior to filing its complaint and prior to filing the instant renewed 

motion, and both times, IP address 76.172.95.157 continued to trace to San Diego, 

California. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. 

 Furthermore, Plaintiff provided a declaration from Susan B. Stalzer, an employee of 

Plaintiff who reviews the content of its motion pictures and who was tasked with reviewing 

contents of the infringing files identified in Exhibit A to the complaint and comparing them 

to Plaintiff’s original works to confirm they were identical, strikingly similar or 

substantially similar. ECF No. 6-2, Declaration of Susan B. Stalzer, (“Stalzer Decl.”), ¶¶ 

3, 7-10. Ms. Stalzer also states that she used “American Registry for Internet Numbers 

(‘ARIN’) to confirm that the ISP Spectrum did own Defendant’s IP address at the time of 

the infringements, and hence has the relevant information to identify Doe Defendant.” Id. 

¶ 11. The dates of the alleged infringing activity in Exhibit A range from July 5, 2017 

through November 7, 2018. ECF No 1-1. 

 Because Plaintiff has provided the Court with the unique IP address and the dates 

and times of connection, the name of the ISP and/or cable operator that provided internet 

access for the user of the identified IP address, and used Maxmind geolocation technology 

                                               

1

 Exhibit A is a table of Plaintiff’s works allegedly infringed by IP address 76.172.95.157. ECF No. 1-1. 

The works are identified by hash value and website name. The table lists the date and time of the alleged 

infringement, and the registration numbers for the works that have either been registered with the United 

States Copyright Office or have copyright registrations pending. Id.; see also Compl. at 5-6. 

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 7 Filed 03/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6 

19cv79-BAS (LL) 

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

to trace the IP address to this District, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient 

showing that Doe 76.172.95.157 likely resolves to a real person or entity with a physical 

address in this District. See 808 Holdings, LLC, 2012 WL 12884688, at *4. 

B. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant

Second, Plaintiff must describe all prior attempts it has made to identify the Doe 

defendant in a good faith effort to locate and serve them. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. 

at 579. Plaintiff states that it “diligently attempted to correlate Defendant’s IP address to 

Defendant by searching for Defendant’s IP address” on various internet search tools; by 

reviewing sources of authority such as legislative reports and informational technology 

guides for other means of identification; and by consulting with computer investigators and 

cyber security experts. ECF No. 6-1 at 13-14. Plaintiff states that despite these efforts, it is 

unable to obtain the identity of the alleged infringer because Defendant’s IP address is 

“assigned to Defendant by his or her [ISP], which is the only party that has the information 

necessary to identify Defendant by correlating the IP address with John Doe’s identify.” 

See id. at 6, 14. Plaintiff also provides a declaration from Philip Pasquale, a tech advisor 

for a cyber security firm, in which Mr. Pasquale states that “[b]ased on [his] experience in 

similar cases, Defendant’s ISP Spectrum is the only entity that can correlate the IP address 

to its subscriber and identify Defendant as the person assigned the IP address 

76.172.95.157 during the time of the alleged infringement.” ECF No. 6-2, Declaration of 

Philip Pasquale (“Pasquale Decl.”), ¶¶ 3, 10. Based on the above, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to identify and locate the Doe defendant. 

C. Whether Plaintiff Can Withstand a Motion to Dismiss

“[A] plaintiff who claims copyright infringement must show: (1) ownership of a 

valid copyright; and (2) that the defendant violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights 

under the Copyright Act.” Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(citations omitted). “To prove a claim of direct copyright infringement, a plaintiff must 

show that he owns the copyright and that the defendant himself violated one or more of the 

plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.” Id. (citation omitted). Before a 

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 7 Filed 03/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7 

19cv79-BAS (LL) 

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

copyright owner can initiate an infringement claim in court, “a copyright claimant 

generally must comply with [17 U.S.C.] § 411(a)’s requirement that ‘registration of the 

copyright claim has been made.’” Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 

LLC, No. 17-571, 2019 WL 1005829, at *3 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2019) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)). 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that “‘registration . . . has been made’ within the 

meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) not when an application for registration is filed, but when 

the Register has registered a copyright after examining a properly filed application.” Id. at 

*7. 

Plaintiff provides evidence that it is the exclusive rights holder of the copyrighted 

works at issue. See ECF No. 1-1 (“Exhibit A”); ECF No. 6-2, Declaration of Greg Lansky 

(“Lansky Decl.”), ¶ 3; Stalzer Decl. ¶¶ 7-10. Plaintiff states that its works at issue are either 

registered with the Copyright Office or have applications pending but does not specify the 

status of each particular work. ECF No. 6-1 at 16. Plaintiff alleges that between July 5, 

2017 and November 7, 2018, Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted work by copying 

and distributing “the constituent elements of Plaintiff’s [w]orks” by using the BitTorrent 

file distribution network. See Compl. at 6; ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff further alleges that it did 

not authorize, permit, or consent to Defendant’s copying or distributing this work. Compl. 

at 7. Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged the prima facie elements of direct copyright 

infringement at least as to its registered works and could withstand a motion of dismiss. 

See Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1076; Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 379-80. 

IV. CONCLUSION

 Having found good cause, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for expedited 

discovery. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that: 

 1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

45 on Spectrum that seeks only the true name and address of the subscriber assigned IP 

address 76.172.95.157. Plaintiff shall not subpoena additional information; 

 2. Plaintiff may only use the disclosed information for the purpose of protecting 

its rights in pursuing this litigation; 

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 7 Filed 03/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8 

19cv79-BAS (LL) 

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

 3. Within fourteen calendar days after service of the subpoena, Spectrum shall 

notify the subscriber that his or her identify 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 by filing an appropriate pleading with this 

Court contesting the subpoena; 

 4. 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 fortyfive days from service to 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; and 

 5. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with any subpoena obtained and 

served pursuant to this Order to Spectrum. Spectrum, 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 12, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 7 Filed 03/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8