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 73.235.177.149, used the BitTorrent protocol to download and distribute Strike 3's adult films.
Because the plaintiff could not identify the defendant's true name without the cooperation of the defendant's internet service provider (ISP), it filed an ex parte application (ECF No. 3) seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on the 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’s Holding
The court granted the plaintiff's ex parte application for expedited discovery on specific terms.
Applying the 'good cause' standard from the Ninth Circuit and the five-factor test from Arista Records, LLC v.
Doe 3 (2d Cir. 2010), 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 court found the fifth factor—the subscriber's expectation of privacy—weighed against granting the request without safeguards.
Citing In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, the court emphasized that an IP address identifies a location, not a specific user, and that the adult nature of the content heightened the risk of reputational harm and coercive settlements.
Consequently, the court authorized a subpoena limited to the subscriber's name and address, required the plaintiff to serve the identified person with a copy of the order within 10 days, stayed formal service of process pending further order, and invited 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 permitted by the court.
Key Takeaways
- The court applied the 'good cause' standard under FRCP 26(d) and (f) to permit pre-conference discovery solely to identify a Doe defendant.
- The court adopted the Arista Records five-factor balancing test, finding the subscriber's privacy interest (factor five) required protective safeguards in copyright troll-style cases.
- The court recognized that an IP address does not reliably identify the individual infringer, citing the prevalence of shared routers and wireless networks.
- The court highlighted the heightened risk of embarrassment and coercive settlement pressure in adult film copyright cases, warranting extra procedural protections.
- The order imposes a structured process: limited subpoena, mandatory notice to the identified subscriber, a stay on formal service, an invitation to an informal conference, and a 60-day status report requirement.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a growing judicial trend in the Eastern District of California and nationally to scrutinize ex parte discovery requests in 'copyright troll' litigation involving adult content.
By requiring notice to the identified subscriber and an opportunity to move to quash before formal service, the court attempts to balance the plaintiff's need to identify infringers against the due process and privacy rights of internet subscribers who may not be the actual infringers.
The decision underscores that magistrate judges in this district will not rubber-stamp expedited discovery applications but will impose procedural guardrails to prevent misuse of the litigation process for coercive settlements.
The order also creates a staged process before the subscriber is publicly named. The ISP must preserve identifying records, notify the subscriber, and withhold production during the objection period. Any subpoena challenge may be filed anonymously, and the plaintiff may not publicly reveal the identified person without later court permission.
The subscriber is not automatically treated as the infringer merely because the account was assigned the observed IP address. The court’s conference procedure preserves room to contest identification, seek to quash the subpoena, discuss service, or explore resolution before ordinary litigation begins.