Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00047/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00047-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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 76.93.160.124,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv47-WQH (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD 

PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A 

RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

[ECF NO. 4]

On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, filed an Ex Parte 

Application for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference 

[ECF No. 4]. Plaintiff seeks to subpoena Defendant John Doe’s Internet Service 

Provider, Spectrum (Time Warner Cable), to “learn Defendant’s true identity, investigate 

Defendant’s role in the infringement, and effectuate service.” (Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. 

Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 6, ECF No. 4.) Because no Defendant has been named or 

served, no opposition has been filed. For the following reasons, the Ex Parte Application 

for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference is 

GRANTED.

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 11
2

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, (“Strike 3 Holdings”) purports to be the 

registered owner of, and hold the exclusive rights to, certain copyrighted motion pictures. 

(Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.) On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that 

Defendant John Doe, an internet subscriber assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) address

76.93.160.124, used the BitTorrent file distribution network to download, copy, and 

distribute seventy seven of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works without authorization. (Id. at 2, 

4-5; id. Attachs. #2-3.) Strike 3 Holdings states that its investigator identified 

Defendant’s IP address as a participant in infringing activity. (Compl. 5, ECF No. 1.) 

On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a 

Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Strike 3 Holdings seeks leave to 

serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on Defendant’s Internet 

Service Provider (“ISP”) Spectrum (Time Warner Cable). (Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. 

#1 Mem. P. & A. 6-7, ECF No. 4.) Strike 3 Holdings requests limited discovery from the 

ISP, arguing that the ISP assigned Doe Defendant’s IP address and can use the IP address 

to identify Defendant’s true name and address. (Id.) 

On March 1, 2018, the Court issued a minute order directing Plaintiff to 

supplement its Ex Parte Application by providing evidence that Plaintiff’s geolocation 

services vendor determined that IP address 76.93.160.124 was located in the Southern 

District of California. (Mins. 1, Mar. 1, 2018, ECF No. 5.) On March 7, 2018, Strike 3 

Holdings provided a declaration from its in-house counsel stating that the device 

associated with the IP address that is the subject of this suit is located in San Diego, 

California. (Suppl. Decl. Attach. #1, Decl. Kennedy, ECF No. 6.)

/ / /

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 11
3

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Cable Privacy Act

The Cable Privacy Act generally prohibits a cable operator from disclosing 

“personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written 

or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned . . . .” 47 U.S.C.A. § 551(c)(1) (West 

2014). A cable operator, however, may disclose the information if the disclosure is made 

pursuant to a court order and the cable operator notifies the subscriber of the order. Id.

§ 551(c)(2)(B). A cable operator is 

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.A. § 522(5) (West 2014). 

B. Requests for Discovery Before Rue 26(f) Conference

Generally, discovery 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). 

Yet, “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)). A party who requests early or expedited discovery must establish good cause. 

Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Elec. Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 

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.” 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. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578.

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 11
4

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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

District courts apply a multi-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 movant must describe “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 that its suit 

against the defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. “Lastly, 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.” Id. at 580. The 

Plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the requested discovery will yield 

information about the defendant so that service of process is possible. See id. The 

factors will ensure that expedited discovery procedure will be sought only after “the 

plaintiff has in good faith exhausted traditional avenues for identifying a civil defendant 

pre-service, and will prevent use of this method to harass or intimidate.” Id. at 578.

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff requests leave to issue a Rule 45 subpoena to Doe Defendant’s ISP, 

Spectrum (Time Warner Cable). (See Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 6, 

17, ECF No. 4.) Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) is a cable operator, and the information 

requested by Strike 3 Holdings falls within the exception to the Cable Privacy Act’s 

disclosure prohibition. See 47 U.S.C.A. § 551(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, if Plaintiff 

satisfies the multi-factor test used by courts to determine whether to allow early 

discovery, Doe Defendant’s ISP may disclose the requested information pursuant to this 

Court’s order.

A. Identification of the Doe Defendant with Sufficient Specificity

Plaintiff has the burden to identify the Doe Defendant with enough specificity to 

establish that the Defendant is a real person or entity, subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. 

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 11
5

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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

Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578. “[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.” 808 Holdings, LLC 

v. Collective of Dec. 29, 2011 Sharing Hash E37917C8EEB4585E6421358FF32F29C 

D63C23C91, Civil No. 12cv00186 MMA(RBB), 2012 WL 12884688, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 

May 8, 2012) (citing OpenMind Sols., Inc. v. Does 1–39, No. C 11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 

4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); 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)). 

Strike 3 Holdings asserts that between May 11, 2017, and October 26, 2017,

Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted works by using the BitTorrent file distribution 

network. (See Compl. 5-6, ECF No. 1; see also id. Attachs. #2-3.) Plaintiff has retained 

a forensic investigation services company, IPP International UG (“IPP”), to monitor the 

BitTorrent file distribution network for copyrighted works and identify IP addresses used

by infringers to distribute copyrighted works within the network. (See Pl.’s Ex Parte 

Appl. Attach. #3 Decl. Fieser 2, ECF No. 4.) Strike 3 Holdings has provided a 

declaration from IPP’s employee, Tobias Fieser, who reviewed IPP’s forensic activity 

records and determined that IPP’s servers connected to an electronic device using IP 

address 76.93.160.124. (See id.) He discovered that the IP address distributed to IPP’s 

servers “multiple pieces” of Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted motion pictures. (Id.) Fieser 

explains that the movie pieces were recorded in a PCAP, a “forensically sound interface 

for recording network traffic”; and that “reassembling the pieces using a specialized

BitTorrent client results in a fully playable digital movie.” (Id. at 3.) According to 

Fieser, digital files can be identified by a “Cryptographic Hash Value,” and the files 

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

Hash outlined on Exhibit A [to Plaintiff’s Complaint].” (Id.) He also states that IP 

address 76.93.160.124 “is associated with significant long term BitTorrent use.” (Id.) 

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 11
6

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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 further contends that Doe Defendant’s IP address belongs to Spectrum 

(Time Warner Cable). (See Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 6, 16, ECF No. 

4.) Strike 3 Holdings asserts that Maxmind Inc. (“Maxmind”) identified Time Warner 

Cable as the owner of Defendant’s IP address, and numerous federal courts found 

Maxmind’s geolocation technology to be credible and reliable. (See id. at 16; see also

Compl. 2, ECF No. 1; Suppl. Decl. Attach. #1 Decl. Kennedy 4, ECF No. 6.) The 

American Registry for Internet Numbers, “a nonprofit, member-based organization, 

responsible for the management and distribution of IP addresses across most of North 

America,” also identified Time Warner Cable as the owner of the IP address

76.93.160.124. (Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 16, ECF No. 4; see also

id. Attach. #4 Decl. Stalzer 3, ECF No. 4.) 

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges in its Complaint and Ex Parte Application for Leave 

to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference that it used IP address 

geolocation technology by Maxmind to determine that Doe Defendant’s IP address traced 

to a physical address within this Court’s jurisdiction. (See Compl. 2, ECF No. 1; Pl.’s Ex 

Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 11-13, ECF No. 4.) At the Court’s request, Plaintiff 

provided a declaration from its in-house counsel, Emilie Kennedy, stating that the device 

associated with the IP address 76.93.160.124 is located in the Southern District of 

California. (Suppl. Decl. Attach. #1, Decl. Kennedy, ECF No. 6.) Kennedy declares that 

on August 31, 2017, after Plaintiff first received infringement data from IPP, the IP 

address 76.93.160.124 was automatically inserted into Maxmind’s Geolocation Database, 

and “Maxmind determined that the IP address traced to a location in San Diego, 

California.” (Id. at 2.) She further declares on March 5, 2018, she re-inserted the IP 

address 76.93.160.124 into Maxmind’s Geolocation Database and confirmed that the IP

address continued to trace to San Diego, California. (Id.; see also id. at 4.)

Plaintiff has therefore provided information about infringing activity tied to Doe 

Defendant’s unique IP address, specific dates and times associated with the activity, the 

name of the ISP for the user of the IP address; and Strike 3 Holdings used geolocation 

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 11
7

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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 San Diego, California. Plaintiff has demonstrated 

that a person or entity engaged in acts of infringement using the IP address 

76.93.160.124, and the IP address likely corresponds to a physical address located in the 

Southern District of California. See Criminal Prods., Inc. v. Doe-72.192.163.220, Case 

No. 16-cv-2589 WQH (JLB), 2016 WL 6822186, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2016) 

(“[B]ased on the timing of the IP address tracing efforts employed by Plaintiff’s 

investigator, the documented success of the Maxmind geolocation service, and Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s efforts to independently verify the location information provided by Plaintiff’s 

investigator, . . . [defendant’s IP address] likely resolves to a physical address located in 

this District.”); see also Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Case No.: 3:17-cv-02316-GPCKSC, 2018 WL 324264, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2018) (citing Criminal Prods., Inc, 2016 

WL 6822186, at *3). Accordingly, Plaintiff has satisfied the “sufficient specificity” 

threshold. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578.

B. Previous Attempts to Locate Doe Defendant

To obtain leave to take early discovery, Plaintiff is also required to describe the 

steps it took to identify Defendant in a good faith effort to locate and serve process. See

id. at 579. Strike 3 Holdings searched for Defendant’s IP address using various internet 

search tools; reviewed numerous legislative reports, agency websites, and informational 

technology guides; and conferred with computer investigators and cyber security 

consultants. (Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 13, ECF No. 4.) 

Additionally, Plaintiff retained a forensic investigation services company IPP to monitor 

the BitTorrent file distribution network for copyrighted works and identify the IP 

addresses used to distribute the works. (Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #3 Decl. Fieser 2, 

ECF No. 4.) IPP determined that the IP address 76.93.160.124 had distributed

“multiple pieces” of Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted movies. (Id.) Despite obtaining

Doe Defendant’s IP address, Plaintiff cannot correlate the IP address to its subscriber and 

identify the Doe Defendant. (See Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 13-14, 

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 11
8

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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

ECF No. 4.) The Court therefore finds that Strike 3 Holdings made a good faith effort to 

identify and locate the Defendant. 

C. Whether Plaintiff’s Suit Could Withstand a Motion to Dismiss

Strike 3 Holdings must also show that its suit could withstand a motion to dismiss. 

See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 579. A claim may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 

12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for 

failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s Complaint 

states the “Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 (federal question); and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (jurisdiction over copyright actions)[,]”

and alleges a cause of action for direct copyright infringement. (Compl. 2, 6-7, ECF 

No. 1.) To prevail on a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must establish

“ (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. (footnote omitted) (citation omitted); see also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 

F.3d 657, 666 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[D]irect infringement requires the plaintiff to show

causation (also referred to as ‘volitional conduct’) by the defendant.”).

Strike 3 Holdings asserts ownership over the seventy-seven copyrighted works that 

are the subject of this suit and claims that the works “have either been registered with the 

United States Copyright Office or have pending copyright registrations.” (Compl. 1, 6, 

ECF No. 1; see also id. Attachs. # 2-3.) It maintains that for the works “that are still 

pending registration, a complete application, fees, and deposit materials for copyright 

registration have been received by the Copyright Office in compliance with the Copyright 

Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.” (Compl. 6, ECF No. 1.) Strike 3 Holdings provides 

evidence that it is the exclusive rights holder of the copyrighted works at issue. (See id.

Attach. #1.) 

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 11
9

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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 further alleges that between May 11, 2017, and October 26, 2017, Doe 

Defendant infringed its copyrighted works by using the BitTorrent file distribution 

network, and Plaintiff did not “authorize, permit or consent to Defendant’s distribution”

of the works. (See id. at 5-6; see also id. Attachs. #2-3.) Strike 3 Holdings provides 

evidence that the device using the IP address 76.93.160.124 distributed multiple pieces of 

Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted motion pictures; and the distributed pieces, when 

assembled, constitute a “fully playable digital movie.” (Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #3 

Decl. Fieser 2-3, ECF No. 4.) Additionally, Plaintiff has verified that each digital file is a 

copy of its motion pictures. (See Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #4 Decl. Stalzer 2-3, ECF 

No. 4.) Strike 3 Holdings has alleged the prima facie elements of direct copyright 

infringement, and its Complaint will likely withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

A case can also be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over a defendant or 

for improper venue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3). In order to survive a motion 

to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a “prima facie 

showing of jurisdictional facts.” Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In copyright infringement actions, venue is proper “in the district in which the 

defendant or his agent resides or may be found.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1400(a) (West 2006). 

An individual “resides” for venue purposes in the district of his domicile. 17 James Wm. 

Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 110.39[2], at 110-74 (3d ed. 2017). For venue 

purposes, a defendant is “found” where he is subject to personal jurisdiction. Id. at 110-

75 (footnote omitted); see also Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 

1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2010) (“This circuit interprets [28 U.S.C. § 1400(a)] to allow venue 

in any judicial district where, if treated as a separate state, the defendant would be subject 

to personal jurisdiction.”).

Strike 3 Holdings alleges that it used geolocation technology to determine that Doe 

Defendant’s IP address traced to a physical address in the Southern District of California,

that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this 

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 11
10

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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

[d]istrict[,]” and Defendant resides in the district. (See Suppl. Decl. Attach. #1 Decl. 

Kennedy, ECF No. 6; see also Compl. 2-3, ECF No. 1; Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 

Mem. P. & A. 11-13, ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has therefore alleged facts that are likely to 

withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue.

D. Whether Requested Discovery Will Lead to Identifying Information

Finally, Strike 3 Holdings is required to demonstrate that the requested discovery 

will lead to identifying information about the Defendant that would make service of 

process possible. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 580. As discussed above,

Plaintiff’s investigation revealed a unique IP address 76.93.160.124, and Defendant’s ISP 

Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) is the only entity that may correlate the IP address to its 

subscriber. (See Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 13-14, ECF No. 4.) The 

requested Rule 45 subpoena would lead to information making physical service of 

process possible.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds good cause and GRANTS the

Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) 

Conference [ECF No. 4] as follows:

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

Procedure 45 on Spectrum (Time Warner Cable), seeking only the name and address

of the subscriber assigned the IP address 76.93.160.124. Strike 3 Holdings may not 

subpoena additional information about the subscriber;

2. Plaintiff may only use the disclosed information to protect its copyrights in 

pursuing this litigation;

3. Within fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the subpoena, Spectrum

(Time Warner Cable)shall notify the subscriber assigned the IP address 76.93.160.124 

that his, her, or its identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff; 

4. The subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall have thirty (30) 

calendar days from the date of the notice to challenge the disclosure of his, her, or its

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 11
11

18cv47-WQH (RBB)

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

name and address by filing an appropriate pleading with this Court contesting the 

subpoena;

 5. If Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) 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 (45) days from service to production. If a motion to quash or 

other customer challenge is brought, Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) shall preserve the 

information sought by Plaintiff in the subpoena pending resolution of the motion or 

challenge;

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

served pursuant to this Order to Spectrum (Time Warner Cable);

7. Spectrum (Time Warner Cable) 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 22, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00047-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 11