Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.: 26-CV-02582-BAS-BJW Plaintiff, 15 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. 16 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD- 17 address 75.80.180.185, PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A 18 Defendant. RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE 20 [ECF No. 4]

21 Before the Court is Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s ex parte application for 22 leave to serve a third-party subpoena prior to the conference held pursuant to Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). No opposition was filed as no defendant has been named 24 or served in this case. ECF No. 4. Strike 3 seeks to obtain the identity of the John Doe 25 defendant, the internet subscriber assigned IP address 75.80.180.185. For the reasons set 26 forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 27 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This case is one of many Plaintiff has filed in this district alleging copyright 3 infringement by a John Doe defendant by using the BitTorrent file sharing system.1 On 4 April 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant John Doe, subscriber 5 assigned IP address 75.80.180.185. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is the owner of a company that 6 creates “award-winning, critically acclaimed adult motion pictures,” which it distributes 7 through its subscription-based “adult website and DVDs.” Compl. ¶ 2; see also ECF No. 8 4-1 at 7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is using BitTorrent protocol to “steal[] these 9 works on a grand scale,” distribute the motion pictures to others, and commit copyright 10 infringement. Compl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges Defendant “has been recorded infringing 71 11 movies over an extended period of time.” Id. 12 Plaintiff can identify Defendant only by Defendant’s IP address: 75.80.180.185. 13 Compl. ¶ 5; see ECF No. 4-1 at 7. Plaintiff has identified Spectrum, an internet service 14 provider (“ISP”), as the owner of Defendant’s IP address. ECF No. 4-1 at 7, 17. Thus, 15 Plaintiff requests the Court’s leave to serve a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 45 on Spectrum, “only demand[ing] the true name and address of Defendant. 17 ECF No. 4-1 at 8. Plaintiff claims that “[w]ithout this information,” it “cannot serve 18 Defendant, nor pursue this lawsuit and protect its copyrights.” Id. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 See, e.g., 17-cv-02302-MMA-JLB; 18-cv-00042-CAB-JLB; 19-cv-02452-JAH-LL; 20-cv-00948 WQH-MSB; 21-cv-00591-CAB-MSB; 22-cv-00299-RBM-AGS; 23-cv-00940-AGS-MMP; 24-cv 28 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “a party may not seek discovery 3 from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)” unless the 4 Court authorizes it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). “[H]owever, in rare cases, courts have made 5 exceptions, permitting limited discovery to ensue after filing of the complaint to permit 6 the plaintiff to learn the identifying facts necessary to permit service on the defendant.” 7 Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing 8 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). “Requests for early or expedited 9 discovery are granted upon a showing by the moving party of good cause.” Malibu 10 Media, LLC v. John Does 1 through 16, No. 12-CV-1847-AJB-DHB, 2012 WL 3809128, 11 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2012) (citing Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578). 12 The Ninth Circuit has said that plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to identify 13 unknown defendants through discovery, “unless it is clear that discovery would not 14 uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” 15 Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642. Courts apply a three-factor test to evaluate motions for early 16 discovery to identify defendants. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1 through 16, No. 12 17 CV-1847-AJB DHB, 2012 WL 3809128, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2012) (citing Columbia 18 Ins., 185 F.R.D at 578–80. First, “the plaintiff should identify the missing party with 19 sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real person or 20 entity who could be sued in federal court.” Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 578. Second, the 21 plaintiff must “identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant.” Id. at 22 579. Third, the plaintiff must “establish to the Court’s satisfaction that plaintiff’s suit 23 against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id. 24 25 26 27 28 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff seeks to serve an early subpoena on Spectrum to learn the identity of the 3 user assigned to a specific IP address. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff has 4 established good cause to do so. 5 A. Identification of Missing Party with Sufficient Specificity 6 First, Plaintiff must identify the Doe defendant with sufficient specificity to 7 establish that the defendant is a real person subject to this Court’s jurisdiction. See 8 Malibu Media, LLC, 2012 WL 3809128 at *3. Plaintiff has traced Defendant’s IP address 9 to San Diego using a geolocation technology called “MaxMind.” ECF No. 4-1 at 12–13; 10 ECF No. 4-2, Kennedy Decl., at 33. The declaration submitted with the instant motion by 11 Strike 3’s General Counsel asserts that Plaintiff traced Defendant’s IP address to a 12 location within this district on three occasions. ECF No. 4-2 at 33. Plaintiff further claims 13 that, but for Defendant’s use of a BitTorrent client, the alleged infringement would not 14 have occurred. ECF No. 4-1 at 12. 15 The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently identified the anonymous defendant 16 by demonstrating that the Doe defendant is likely a real person associated with IP address 17 75.80.180.185 and is likely located in the Southern District of California. See Strike 3 18 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 25-CV-1652-H-DDL, 2025 WL 2309018, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. 19 July 30, 2025) (finding similar facts sufficient to identify an anonymous defendant). 20 B. Previous Attempts to Locate Defendant 21 Second, Plaintiff must identify all prior steps it has taken to identify the defendant. 22 Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579. Plaintiff states that it has sought to “correlate 23 Defendant’s IP address to Defendant” by using online search engines, reviewing public 24 records, and consulting with computer investigators and cybersecurity consultants. ECF 25 No. 4-1 at 14. Nevertheless, “Strike 3 has been unable to identify any other way to obtain 26 the identities of its infringers and does not know how else it could enforce its copyrights 27 against illegal Internet piracy.” Id. The Court finds that Plaintiff has attempted to 28 determine Defendant’s identity but has been unable to do so. 1 C. Ability to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss 2 Third, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff has established that it could 3 withstand a motion to dismiss. Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579–80. Plaintiff alleges a 4 single count of direct copyright infringement. Compl. at 8. A copyright infringer is 5 “[a]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.” Bell v. 6 Wilmott Storage Servs., LLC, 12 F.4th 1065, 1080 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 7 501(a)). To prove direct copyright infringement, “a plaintiff ‘must show ownership of the 8 allegedly infringed material’ and ‘demonstrate that the alleged infringers violated at least 9 one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106.’” Perfect 10, Inc. 10 v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657, 666 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting A&M Records, Inc. v. 11 Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001)). A claim for direct infringement also 12 requires “volitional conduct,” or proximate causation. See id. at 666–67. 13 Plaintiff alleges that it owns the works at issue and that Defendant copied and 14 distributed those works without authorization or consent. Compl. ¶¶ 30, 34, 35, 44, 47– 15 49. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant affirmatively engaged in this conduct using 16 the BitTorrent network. Compl. ¶¶ 18–26, 33–35. The Court finds that Plaintiff has 17 alleged a prima facie case of direct copyright infringement sufficient to withstand a 18 motion to dismiss. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 17CV2317-JAH-BLM, 2017 19 WL 6389848, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2017) (citing Columbia Ins., 185 F.R.D. at 579– 20 80). 21 IV. LIMITED PROTECTIVE ORDER 22 The Court is empowered to issue a protective order “to protect a party or person 23 from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. 24 P. 26(c)(1). Plaintiff states that it agrees with courts that have imposed orders protecting 25 defendants’ identities in these matters, that doing so “comports with Strike 3’s policy of 26 respecting privacy[,]” and that Plaintiff “would not oppose” such an order here. ECF No. 27 4-1 at 18. The Court finds good cause to enter a limited protective order permitting 28 Defendant to proceed pseudonymously as “John Doe” for the 60 days following service 1 the summons and complaint. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 23-CV-01558-H- 2 || MSB, 2024 WL 253632, at *2—3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2024) (weighing the parties’ 3 || concerns and the public interest and finding a limited protective order appropriate); see 4 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 22-CV-00296-LL-JLB, 2022 WL 935267, at *5 5 ||(S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022) (imposing a limited protective order to prevent the possibility 6 || of any “unscrupulous tactics” to shake down IP address owners). 7 8 Vv. CONCLUSION 9 Plaintiff is granted leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Spectrum. The subpoena 10 be limited to obtaining the name and physical address of the individual assigned IP 11 address 75.80.180.185. It must include a copy of this Order and allow Spectrum at least 12 || forty-five (45) days to comply. 13 Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), Spectrum shall, within fourteen (14) days of 14 || being served with the subpoena, provide a copy of this Order to the individual assigned 15 || IP address 75.80.180.185. Defendant Doe shall have twenty-one (21) days from receipt of 16 Order to file any challenge to the subpoena. If Spectrum elects to move to quash the 17 || subpoena, it must do so before the compliance deadline and without disclosing the 18 || information sought. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: July 24, 2026. 21 73 Ho an J. White United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28