Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00948/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00948-0/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 76.126.70.144,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00948-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

SERVE THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 7

Before the court is plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s (“Strike 3”) motion for Leave to 

Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Dkt. 7. The matter is

fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Having read the papers and 

carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause 

appearing, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion as follows.

“In the Ninth Circuit, courts use the ‘good cause’ standard to determine whether 

discovery should be allowed to proceed prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. Good cause 

may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the 

administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” UMG 

Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, No. C 08-1193 SBA, 2008 WL 4104214, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 

2008) (collecting cases). “[T]here is no prejudice where the discovery request is narrowly 

tailored to only seek [a defendant’s] identity.” Id. “In Internet infringement cases, courts 

routinely find good cause exists to issue a Rule 45 subpoena to discover a Doe 

defendant's identity, prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, where a plaintiff makes” certain 

showings. Id. (citations omitted) (collecting cases granting leave to take early discovery).

Case 4:19-cv-00948-PJH Document 9 Filed 04/01/19 Page 1 of 2
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

“District courts in th[e] [Ninth] circuit have developed a four-part test for 

determining when to allow early discovery. Under the test applied in Columbia Insurance 

Co. v. seescandy.com[,185 F.R.D. 573, 575 (N.D. Cal. 1999)], the moving party must: 

‘(1) identify the defendant with enough specificity to allow the Court to determine whether 

the defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) recount 

the steps taken to locate the defendant; (3) show that its action could survive a motion to 

dismiss; and (4) file a request for discovery with the Court identifying the 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.’” Ebates, Inc. v. 

Does, No. 16-CV-01925-JST, 2016 WL 2344199, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2016) (quoting 

SBO Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-3036, No. 11-4220 SC, 2011 WL 6002620, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Nov. 30, 2011)). 

Plaintiff has established that “good cause” exists for it to serve a third-party 

subpoena on defendant’s internet service provider, Comcast Cable Communications, 

LLC (“Comcast”). As such, Strike 3 may serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena 

commanding Comcast to provide Strike 3 with the name and address of the defendant to 

whom Comcast assigned the IP address set forth in the complaint—76.126.70.144. 

Plaintiff shall attach to any such subpoena a copy of this order. This order does 

not authorize plaintiff to serve any third-party other than Comcast with a Rule 45 

subpoena. Plaintiff may only use the information Comcast discloses in response to the 

subpoena to litigate this action, and for no other purpose.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, subject to the 

provisions of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00948-PJH Document 9 Filed 04/01/19 Page 2 of 2