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 104.220.99.91, used the BitTorrent protocol to download and distribute its 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 expedited discovery it would be unable to serve the complaint and vindicate its copyright.
The court evaluated the request under the Ninth Circuit's "good cause" standard for early discovery and the five-factor test from Arista Records, LLC v.
Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010), balancing the plaintiff's need for the subscriber's identity against the privacy interests of the account holder.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the plaintiff's ex parte application for expedited discovery on specific terms.
It authorized the plaintiff to serve a subpoena on the ISP seeking only the true name and address of the subscriber assigned the IP address.
However, the order imposed significant privacy safeguards: the plaintiff is prohibited from formally serving the complaint or revealing the defendant's identity without further court order; the plaintiff must serve a copy of the order on the identified subscriber within ten days; and the court invited both parties to an informal conference to schedule a potential motion to quash and discuss service procedures.
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 wrongly identified subscriber.
A status report is due within 60 days.
Key Takeaways
- The court applied the 'good cause' standard under Rule 26(d) and the Arista Records five-factor test to grant limited expedited discovery for ISP subpoenas in copyright cases.
- The order recognizes that an IP address subscriber is not necessarily the infringer, citing the prevalence of shared routers and wireless networks.
- Significant privacy protections were mandated due to the 'embarrassment and reputational damage' inherent in adult film copyright litigation, including a ban on formal service or public disclosure of identity without court approval.
- The court established a voluntary informal conference mechanism to allow the identified subscriber an opportunity to move to quash the subpoena before formal litigation proceeds.
- Plaintiff is required to file a status report within 60 days and is cautioned against revealing the defendant's identity in or out of court until permitted.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a growing judicial trend in the Eastern District of California and nationwide to condition expedited discovery in 'copyright troll' or mass BitTorrent litigation on robust procedural safeguards.
By requiring notice to the subscriber, an opportunity to be heard via an informal conference, and a prohibition on premature disclosure of identity, the court addresses due process and privacy concerns raised by the tenuous link between an IP address and an individual infringer.
The ruling underscores that the sensitive nature of adult content warrants heightened scrutiny to prevent coercive settlements based on fear of public exposure rather than the merits of the claim.
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.
The ruling is tied to the record and procedural posture before this court. It does not finally establish liability, decide every defense, or replace later proceedings required to resolve disputed facts. Lawyers should distinguish the relief actually ordered from issues the court left open.
For case management, the exact terms of the order should control. Counsel should preserve the supporting record, calendar every stated deadline, and avoid describing conditional or preliminary relief as a final adjudication. The next filing or hearing may determine whether the provisional result remains in place.
Parties relying on this decision should also separate its legal reasoning from its remedy. The court applied the governing rule to the facts alleged or documented here, and the relief reflects that particular record. Later factual development, compliance, or further review may change the case’s course without altering what this order decided.