Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed this copyright infringement action on September 25, 2026, alleging that the defendant, identifiable only by IP address 76.105.14.85, used the BitTorrent protocol to download and distribute Strike 3’s adult films. Because the plaintiff could not identify the defendant by name, it filed an ex parte application (ECF No. 3) seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on the defendant’s internet service provider (ISP) prior to the Rule 26(f) discovery conference.
The plaintiff argued that without such expedited discovery, it would be unable to serve the complaint and vindicate its copyright. The court considered the application under the ‘good cause’ standard for early discovery under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(d) and (f), noting that Ninth Circuit precedent permits expedited discovery in infringement cases to identify Doe defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the plaintiff’s ex parte application for expedited discovery but imposed significant privacy safeguards. Applying the five-factor test from Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, the court found the first four factors favored the plaintiff: it stated a prima facie claim, sought specific identifying information, had no alternative means to obtain it, and needed the information to proceed.
However, the fifth factor—the subscriber’s expectation of privacy—weighed against granting the request without protections. The court emphasized that an IP address identifies a location, not a specific user, citing In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, and noted the heightened risk of embarrassment and coercive settlements in adult film cases. The order permits a subpoena to the ISP for the subscriber’s name and address only, requires the plaintiff to serve the identified person with a copy of the order within 10 days, stays formal service of process pending further court order, and invites both parties to an informal conference to discuss a motion to quash or service procedures. The plaintiff must file a status report within 60 days and is prohibited from revealing the defendant’s identity until the court permits.
Key Takeaways
- Expedited discovery to unmask a Doe defendant via ISP subpoena is granted upon a showing of good cause, but the court imposes procedural safeguards to protect the subscriber’s privacy interests.
- The court recognizes that an IP address identifies a household or connection point, not necessarily the individual infringer, making mistaken identity a significant risk.
- In adult film copyright cases, the court acknowledges the heightened risk of reputational harm and coercive settlements against wrongly identified subscribers.
- The identified subscriber must be served with the court’s order and invited to an informal conference before formal service of process is permitted, preserving the right to file a motion to quash.
- The plaintiff is barred from disclosing the defendant’s identity publicly or in court filings until the court authorizes such disclosure.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a growing judicial trend in the Eastern District of California and elsewhere to balance a copyright holder’s need for discovery against the substantial privacy and due process concerns inherent in ‘copyright troll’ litigation, particularly involving adult content.
By requiring notice to the identified subscriber, staying formal service, and facilitating a pre-service conference, the court ensures the subscriber has a meaningful opportunity to challenge the subpoena (e.g., on grounds of mistaken identity) before being publicly named in a sensitive lawsuit. The ruling underscores that an IP address alone is insufficient to establish personal liability and that courts have a duty to prevent the misuse of the judicial process for coercive settlement leverage.