Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00079/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00079-0/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 DENYING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 

SERVE A THIRD PARTY 

SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE 

26(f) CONFERENCE

[ECF No. 4]

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s February 8, 2019 “EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO 

A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE.” ECF No. 4. 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 DENIES the motion for the reasons set 

forth below.

BACKGROUND

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

featured on its subscription-based adult websites.” ECF No. 4-1 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 5 Filed 02/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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 the instant motion. ECF No. 4. 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. 4-1 at 7.

LEGAL STANDARD

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. 

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 

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 5 Filed 02/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

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.

DISCUSSION

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 

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 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 5 Filed 02/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

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, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to identify Defendant with sufficient 

specificity to enable the Court to determine Defendant would be subject to its jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it used “IP address geolocation technology by 

Maxmind Inc. (‘Maxmind’), an industry-leading provider of IP address intelligence and 

online fraud detection tools, to determine that Defendant’s IP address traced to a physical 

address in this District.” Compl. at 2-3; see also ECF No. 4-1 at 12. However, the allegation 

that Defendant’s IP address traced to a physical address in this District is not supported in 

any declaration filed in support of the instant motion that would indicate, for example, who 

used the geolocation technology, when it was used, and how it is probative of the physical 

location of the subscriber. Accordingly, no evidentiary support was provided to show that 

Defendant’s IP address likely resolves to a physical address located in this District, and 

this Court cannot rely on Plaintiff’s unsupported assertions regarding the use and accuracy 

of the geolocation technology Plaintiff contends to have applied. Therefore, the instant 

motion must fail because there is no reliable evidence to support the allegation that 

Defendant is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction. See Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s 

ex parte motion for leave to serve a third party subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00079-BAS-LL Document 5 Filed 02/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4