Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02488/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02488-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG

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 76.88.49.186,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 

SERVE A THIRD-PARTY 

SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE 

26(f) CONFERENCE

[ECF No. 3]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte

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

ECF No. 3. No defendant has been named or served, and so no opposition or reply briefs 

have been filed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

application.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant “John Doe,” 

who is allegedly a subscriber of “Spectrum” and assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) address 

76.88.49.186. ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, is the owner of numerous 

adult motion pictures, which Plaintiff distributes through adult websites and DVDs. 

Case 3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
2

3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG

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

Id. ¶¶ 2-3. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is committing “rampant and wholesale copyright 

infringement” by downloading, recording, and distributing copies of Plaintiff’s 

copyrighted motion pictures without authorization through the use of the BitTorrent file 

distribution network. Id. ¶¶ 4, 19-30.

In the motion at hand, Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct early discovery prior to the 

mandated Rule 26(f) conference to learn Defendant’s identity. ECF No. 3. Specifically, 

Plaintiff seeks an order permitting it to serve a third-party subpoena under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 45 on Spectrum, the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) who leased the IP 

address belonging to Defendant John Doe, which would require Spectrum to supply the 

name and address of its subscriber to Plaintiff. ECF No. 3-1 at 6-7. Through service of the 

third-party subpoena, Plaintiff seeks only “the true name and address of Defendant.” Id. at 

7. Additionally, Plaintiff represents to the Court that it will only use this information to 

prosecute the claims made in its Complaint. Id. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party is generally not permitted to obtain discovery 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). However, courts make exceptions to allow limited discovery after a complaint 

is filed to permit the plaintiff to learn the identifying information necessary to serve the 

defendant. Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999); 

see, e.g., UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, No. C-08-03999 RMW, 2008 WL 4104207, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2008) (noting, in an infringement case, that “a plaintiff cannot have a 

discovery planning conference with an anonymous defendant[,]” thus, limited expedited 

discovery would “permit the [plaintiff] to identify John Doe and serve the defendant, 

permitting this case to go forward.”)

Consistent with this generally recognized exception to Rule 26(f), the Ninth Circuit 

has held that “‘where the identity of the alleged defendant[] [is] not [] known prior to the 

filing of a complaint[,] the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to 

identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the 

Case 3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
3

3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG

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

identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.’” Wakefield v. 

Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 

637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)).

A party who requests early or expedited discovery must make a showing of good 

cause. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 

2002) (applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff’s request 

for expedited discovery”). Good cause is established through a balancing test “where the 

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

the prejudice to the responding party.” Id. at 276. To determine whether “good cause” 

exists to permit expedited discovery to identify John Doe defendants, district courts in the 

Ninth Circuit consider whether the plaintiff (1) “identif[ies] 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) “identif[ies] all previous steps taken to 

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

the defendant; and (3) “establish[es] to the Court’s satisfaction that plaintiff’s suit against 

defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss.” Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578-80. 

Additionally, the plaintiff should demonstrate the discovery will likely lead to identifying 

information that will permit service of process. Id. at 580. These factors are considered to 

ensure the expedited discovery procedure “will only be employed in cases where 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.

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that there is good cause for this Court to allow expedited 

discovery. ECF No. 3-1 at 10-16. For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees.

a. Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity 

To satisfy the first prong, Plaintiff must identify Defendant with enough specificity 

to enable the Court to determine that Defendant is a real person or entity who would be 

subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578. District courts 

Case 3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
4

3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG

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

in this circuit have determined “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 December 

29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12cv00186 MMA(RBB), 2012 WL 12884688, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 

May 4, 2012); see Openmind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, No. C 11-3311 MEJ, 2011 WL 

4715200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011) (concluding that plaintiff satisfied the first factor 

by identifying the defendants’ IP addresses and by tracing 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, 2011 WL 2470986, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011) (same). Other courts have 

concluded that merely identifying the IP addresses on the day of the alleged infringement 

satisfies this factor. 808 Holdings, 2012 WL 12884688, at *4 (collecting cases).

Here, Plaintiff has identified the Doe Defendant with sufficient specificity. First, in 

support of the present motion, Plaintiff provided a Declaration by David Williamson, an 

independent contractor hired by Plaintiff as an Information Systems and Management 

Consultant ECF No. 3-2 at 2-15 (“Ex. A”). In that role, Mr. Williamson testifies he 

“oversaw the design, development, and overall creation of the infringement detection 

system called VXN Scan[,] which [Plaintiff] both owns and uses to identify the IP 

addresses used by individuals infringing Plaintiff’s movies via the BitTorrent protocol.” 

Ex. A ¶ 40. Mr. Williamson’s Declaration explains the VXN Scan system in detail, which 

involves, in part, the development of a proprietary BitTorrent client that emulates the 

behavior of a standard BitTorrent client by repeatedly downloading data pieces from peers 

within the BitTorrent network that are distributing Plaintiff’s movies. Id. ¶¶ 52-55. Mr. 

Williamson testifies that another component of the VXN Scan system is the PCAP1

Recorder / Capture Card, which is able to record the IP addresses connecting to the 

 

1 PCAP stands for “Packet Capture.” Ex. A ¶ 58.

Case 3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
5

3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG

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

Proprietary Client and sending the infringed copies of Plaintiff’s movies to the Proprietary 

Client through the BitTorrent network. Id. ¶¶ 57-59. Not only does a PCAP contain the IP 

addresses used in the network transaction, it also records the port number and BitTorrent 

client used to accomplish each transaction, and the “Info Hash” associated with the 

infringing computer file, which reflects the metadata of the particular underlying .torrent 

file being shared without authorization. Id. ¶¶ 61-62. The PCAP Capture Card records 

PCAPs in real time and is able to record perfect copies of every network packet received 

by the Proprietary Client. Id. ¶ 65. Although this Order touches only on two of the 

components of the VXN Scan system, Mr. Williamson’s 81-paragraph Declaration sets 

forth additional in-depth details of all five components of the system, providing the Court 

a thorough understanding of how the system reliably pinpoints the IP addresses used by 

individuals infringing Plaintiff’s movies and verifies the infringement. 

Second, Plaintiff also provided a declaration by Patrick Paige, a computer forensics 

expert retained by Plaintiff to analyze and retain forensic evidence captured by the VXN 

Scan system. ECF No. 3-2 at 17-21 (“Ex. B”). Mr. Paige explains that VXN Scan recorded 

numerous BitTorrent computer transactions with IP address 76.88.49.186 in the form of 

PCAPs, and that he reviewed the PCAP to confirm that it evidences a recorded transaction 

with that IP address on October 26, 2019 at 22:41:21 UTC involving the IP address 

uploading a piece or pieces of a file corresponding to the hash value that is unique to one 

of Plaintiff’s movies. Ex. B. ¶¶ 13-19.

Third, Plaintiff provided a declaration by Susan Stalzer, one of Plaintiff’s employees 

who verified that each digital file that the Proprietary Client received through its 

transactions with IP address 76.88.49.186 is a copy of one of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, 

by viewing the unauthorized motion pictures corresponding with the file hashes side-byside with Plaintiff’s original movies. ECF No. 3-2 at 23-25 (“Ex. C”). See also ECF No. 1-

2, Ex. A to the Complaint (listing the hash values of the 72 torrent files received by the 

Proprietary Client from the IP address 76.88.49.186). Mr. Paige testifies that based on his 

Case 3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
6

3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG

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

experience in similar cases, Defendant’s ISP is the only entity that can correlate the IP 

address 76.88.49.186 to its subscriber to pinpoint Defendant’s identity. Ex. B ¶ 22.

Finally, Plaintiff provides a declaration by Emilie Kennedy, Plaintiff’s in-house 

General Counsel. ECF No. 3-2 at 27-31 (“Ex. D”). Ms. Kennedy explains that after Plaintiff 

received infringement data from VXN Scan identifying IP address 76.88.49.186 as 

infringing its works, the IP address was automatically input into Maxmind’s Geolocation 

Database on December 12, 2018, which traced the IP address location to La Jolla, 

California, within this Court’s jurisdiction. Ex. D. ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiff has since repeated the 

trace through the Geolocation Database twice more, prior to filing the Complaint and prior 

to filing the present Motion, confirming the IP address continues to trace to this District. 

Id. ¶¶ 6-7. The Court is satisfied that these multiple geolocation traces over the course of 

more than a year indicating that the Defendant is located in this District are reliably

accurate.

Based on all of the information above, the Court concludes Plaintiff provided a 

sufficient showing that it seeks to sue a real person subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. 

Likewise, if Plaintiff obtains the identifying information from the ISP for the subscriber 

assigned the IP address at issue, the information sought in the subpoena would likely enable 

Plaintiff to serve Defendant. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff satisfied the “sufficient 

specificity” threshold.

b. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant

Next, Plaintiff is required to describe all steps taken to identify the Doe defendant in 

a good-faith effort to locate and serve them. Plaintiff states that it attempted to locate 

Defendant by searching for Defendant’s IP address using online search engines and other 

web search tools. ECF No. 3-1 at 12-13. Plaintiff also reviewed numerous sources of 

authority such as legislative reports, agency websites, informational technology guides, 

etc. regarding whether it is possible to identify such a defendant by other means, and 

extensively discussed this issue with its computer investigators and cyber security 

consultants. Id. at 13. Despite these diligent efforts, Plaintiff was unable to identify any 

Case 3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
7

3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG

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

means of obtaining the identity of Defendant other than through subpoenaing the 

information from the ISP. Id.; see also Ex. B ¶ 22. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has 

shown it has made a good-faith effort to identify and locate Defendant before resorting to 

filing the instant motion.

c. Whether Plaintiff Can Withstand a Motion to Dismiss

Lastly, Plaintiff must establish it could survive a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b); Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)). To present a prima facie case of copyright infringement, Plaintiff must show: (1) 

ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) that Defendant violated the copyright owner’s 

exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. Range Road Music, Inc. v. East Coast Foods, 

Inc., 668 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2012). In addition, for direct infringement Plaintiff is 

required to show causation by Defendant. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657, 

666 (9th Cir. 2017).

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint clearly alleges that Plaintiff owns a valid copyright in 

the works at issue, which are registered with the United States Copyright Office. See ECF 

No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 34-35.

2 And again, Ms. Stalzer attests that she reviewed the files 

correlating to the hashes identified in Exhibit A to the Complaint and confirmed that they

are “identical, strikingly similar or substantially similar” to Strike 3’s original 

copyrighted Works. Ex. C ¶¶ 9-10. Plaintiff’s Complaint also alleges Defendant used

BitTorrent to copy and distribute the copyrighted works without authorization, and that 

 

2 Exhibit A to the Complaint, which shows the hash values of the purportedly infringing 

movies downloaded from the IP address 76.88.49.186, also contains the United States 

Copyright Office registration information of the works that correspond with those hash 

files. 

Case 3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
8

3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG

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

the infringement was continuous and ongoing. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 4, 19-30, 33. Thus, 

Plaintiff’s Complaint has stated a claim for copyright infringement against the Doe 

Defendant sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Additionally, Plaintiff has alleged

sufficient facts to show it could withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction or a motion for improper venue, because Defendant’s IP address was traced 

to a location in this District. Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiff has met the third 

prong necessary to establish good cause for granting early discovery.

IV. CONCLUSION

For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave 

to serve a subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. ECF No. 3. However, the Court is 

cognizant of the potential embarrassment of being identified in this type of case and “shares 

the growing concern about unscrupulous tactics used by certain plaintiffs, especially in the 

adult film industry, to shake down the owners of IP addresses.” Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 

1-5, No. 12 Civ. 2950(JPO), 2012 WL 2001968, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2012).

Anticipating and sharing these concerns, Plaintiff invites the Court to issue a protective 

order establishing procedural safeguards if the Court finds such procedures appropriate. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff shall attach a copy of this Order to any subpoena.

2. Plaintiff may serve the ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to 

provide Plaintiff with only the true name and address of the Defendant to 

whom the ISP assigned an IP address as set forth on Exhibit A to the 

Complaint. The ISP is not to release the Defendant’s telephone number or 

email address. 

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

notify the subscriber that his or her identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. 

The ISP must also provide a copy of this Order along with the required notice 

to the subscriber whose identity is sought pursuant to this Order.

Case 3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
9

3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG

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

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

calendar days from the date of such notice to challenge the disclosure of his 

or her name and contact information by filing an appropriate pleading with 

this Court contesting the subpoena. A subscriber who moves to quash or 

modify the subpoena may proceed anonymously as “John Doe,” and shall 

remain anonymous until the Court orders that the identifying information may

be released. 

5. If the ISP 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 challenge is brought, the ISP shall preserve the information sought 

by Plaintiff in the subpoena pending resolution of such motion or challenge.

6. Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 

subpoena served on the ISP for the purpose of protecting and enforcing 

Plaintiff’s rights as set forth in its Complaint. If Defendant wishes to proceed 

anonymously, Plaintiff may not release any identifying information without a 

court order allowing the release of the information. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 29, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02488-LAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 01/29/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9