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 98.244.40.30, used the BitTorrent protocol to download and distribute Strike 3's adult films.
Because the plaintiff could not identify the defendant by name without the cooperation of the defendant's internet service provider (ISP), it filed an ex parte application for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on the ISP prior to a Rule 26(f) conference.
The plaintiff argued that without expedited discovery it would be unable to serve the complaint and vindicate its copyright.
The court considered the application under the Ninth Circuit's "good cause" standard for early discovery and the five-factor test from the Second Circuit's decision in Arista Records, LLC v.
Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010), to balance the plaintiff's need for discovery against the subscriber's privacy interests.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the plaintiff's ex parte application for expedited discovery on specific terms.
It found that the first four Arista factors weighed in the plaintiff's favor: Strike 3 stated a prima facie claim by providing a list of downloads to the subject IP address; the discovery request was specific, seeking only the name and address of the subscriber; no alternative means existed to identify the defendant; and the information was necessary to proceed with the action.
However, the court found the fifth factor— the defendant's expectation of privacy—weighed against granting the request without additional safeguards.
Citing In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), 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 for a misidentified subscriber.
Consequently, the court authorized a subpoena limited to the subscriber's name and address but imposed strict procedural protections: no formal service of process is permitted without further court order; the plaintiff must serve a copy of the order on the identified person within 10 days; the parties are invited to an informal conference to schedule a motion to quash and discuss service; the plaintiff is barred from revealing the defendant's identity until permitted by the court; and a status report is due within 60 days.
Key Takeaways
- Expedited discovery to unmask a Doe defendant via ISP subpoena is granted upon a showing of good cause, but the court imposes significant privacy safeguards due to the tenuous link between an IP subscriber and the alleged infringer.
- The court applies the five-factor Arista Records test (prima facie claim, specificity, lack of alternatives, necessity, and privacy expectation) to evaluate ex parte discovery requests in copyright cases.
- The adult nature of the copyrighted works triggers heightened privacy concerns, including risks of embarrassment, reputational damage, and coercive settlements for potentially misidentified subscribers.
- The order prohibits formal service of process and public disclosure of the defendant's identity until further court order, and mandates an informal conference to allow the defendant an opportunity to move to quash.
- The plaintiff must file a status report within 60 days detailing service of the order, the defendant's willingness to conference, and the case status, while continuing to identify the defendant as John/Jane Doe.
Why It Matters
This order exemplifies the Eastern District of California's cautious approach to 'copyright troll' litigation involving adult content.
By granting discovery but layering procedural protections—such as barring immediate service, requiring notice to the subscriber, inviting a pre-service conference, and gagging the plaintiff regarding the subscriber's identity—the court attempts to balance the copyright holder's right to pursue infringers against the substantial risk of misidentification and reputational harm inherent in IP-address-based litigation.
The ruling underscores that an IP address alone does not establish the identity of the infringer, particularly in shared household or wireless network environments, and signals judicial scrutiny of settlement leverage derived from the embarrassing nature of the allegations.
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.