Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.: 26-cv-3747-BAS-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD- 14 JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A address 172.119.37.156, 15 RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE Defendant. [DKT. NO. 4] 16 17 Before the Court is an Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a Third-Party 18 Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference filed by Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. (Dkt. 19 No. 4.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s application is GRANTED. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On June 25, 2026, Plaintiff filed a complaint against “John Doe,” allegedly a 22 subscriber of Spectrum, assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) address 172.119.37.156. 23 (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges direct copyright infringement against 24 Defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that it is the registered copyright holder of certain 25 copyrighted works alleged to have been infringed by Defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff contends 26 Defendant used the BitTorrent file distribution network to download, copy, and distribute 27 Plaintiff’s copyrighted works without Plaintiff’s permission. (Id.) 28 1 Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct early discovery to learn the identity of the subscriber 2 of the subject IP address from the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) who assigned the IP 3 address to its subscriber during the relevant period. (Dkt. No. 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff 4 seeks an order permitting it to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum, pursuant to 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, to learn Defendant’s true name and address. (Id.) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 7 Formal discovery is generally not permitted without a court order before the parties 8 have conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. 9 P. 26(d)(1). “[H]owever, in rare cases, courts have made exceptions, permitting limited 10 discovery to ensue after filing of the complaint to permit the plaintiff to learn the 11 identifying facts necessary to permit service on the defendant.” Columbia Ins. Co. v. 12 Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 13 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Requests for early or expedited discovery are granted upon 14 a showing of good cause by the moving party. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., 15 Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need 16 for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the 17 prejudice to the responding party.” Id. at 276. 18 The Ninth Circuit holds that when a defendant’s identity is unknown at the time the 19 complaint is filed, a court may grant leave to take early discovery to determine the 20 defendant’s identity “unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identit[y], or 21 that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.’” Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642. “A 22 district court’s decision to grant discovery to determine jurisdictional facts is a matter of 23 discretion.” Columbia Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. at 578. 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 In determining whether to grant leave for early discovery to ascertain a defendant’s 26 identity, district courts consider: (1) whether the plaintiff can “identify the missing party 27 with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real person 28 or entity who could be sued in federal court”; (2) whether the plaintiff has described “all 1 previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant”; (3) whether the “suit against 2 defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss”; and (4) whether there “is a reasonable 3 likelihood that the [proposed] discovery . . . will lead to identifying information about 4 defendant that would make service of process possible.” Id. at 578-80. 5 Upon review of the application and its supporting declarations, the Court finds that 6 Plaintiff has shown good cause to subpoena records from Spectrum identifying the 7 subscriber assigned to the subject IP address. First, Plaintiff has identified Defendant with 8 sufficient specificity by using geolocation technology to trace his or her unique IP address 9 to locations in Carlsbad, California and Vista, California, both within this Court’s 10 jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 12; Dkt. No. 4-2 at 33.) Second, Plaintiff has described 11 previous steps taken to locate Defendant, such as using various web search tools, and 12 employing computer investigators and cyber security consultants. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 14.) 13 Despite these efforts, Plaintiff has been unable to identify Defendant and represents that it 14 cannot do so without the requested discovery. (Id.) Third, Plaintiff has set forth sufficient 15 factual allegations as to each of the elements of direct copyright infringement and shows 16 the complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges it owns 17 the subject intellectual property, which Defendant copied and distributed without 18 Plaintiff’s authorization, permission, or consent. (Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 4-1 at 15-17.) 19 Fourth, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the requested discovery will lead to identifying 20 information that will make service of process upon Defendant possible. As explained 21 above, Plaintiff’s investigation has revealed a unique IP address, and its geolocation 22 technology has identified Spectrum as the owner. (Dkt. 4-1 at 17.) Because the only entity 23 able to correlate an IP address to a specific individual is the ISP, Spectrum, the requested 24 Rule 45 subpoena would lead to information making service of process possible. 25 IV. CONCLUSION 26 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for 27 Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (Dkt. No. 4) as 28 follows: 1 1. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 ||45 on Spectrum for the sole purpose of obtaining the true name and address of Defendant 3 || John Doe, based on the IP address listed in the Complaint: 172.119.37.156. Plaintiff may 4 ||not subpoena additional information about the subscriber and Plaintiff may only use the 5 || disclosed information to protect its copyrights in pursuing this litigation. 6 2. The subpoena must provide at least forty-five (45) calendar days from service 7 || to production. If a motion to quash or other customer challenge is brought, Spectrum shall 8 || preserve the information sought by Plaintiff in the subpoena pending resolution of such 9 || motion or challenge. 10 3. Spectrum must notify its subscriber, within fourteen (14) calendar days after 11 ||service of the subpoena, that his or her identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. The 12 subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed will have thirty (30) calendar days from 13 date of the notice to challenge the disclosure to Plaintiff by filing an appropriate 14 || pleading with the Court contesting the subpoena. 15 4. Plaintiff shall attach a copy of this Order to any Rule 45 subpoena issued 16 |} pursuant to this Order. Spectrum, in turn, must provide a copy of this Order along with the 17 ||required notice to the subscriber whose identity is sought. 18 5. No other discovery is authorized at this time. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: July 22, 2026 21 BF G.

74 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28