Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright infringement action on September 29, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:26-cv-05585-AGS-JLB, against an anonymous defendant identified only as the 'John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.222.122.96.' The complaint alleges that between July 2, 2026, and July 7, 2026, the person using that IP address illegally downloaded and distributed twenty-four of the company's motion pictures through the BitTorrent file-sharing network, asserting a single count of direct copyright infringement; an attached table reflects alleged infringing activity on July 2, July 3, and July 7, 2026.
Because the alleged infringement occurred online, the plaintiff did not know the defendant's actual name or address. It believed AT&T Internet, the internet service provider that assigned the IP address, was the only entity capable of correlating the address with the subscriber's identity. Strike 3 Holdings therefore filed an ex parte application for leave to serve a third-party Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T Internet before the parties held their required Rule 26(f) discovery conference; no opposition was filed because no defendants had been served or named. On November 4, 2026, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt granted the application.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the application, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated good cause for expedited discovery under the three-factor test that district courts in the Ninth Circuit apply to requests to identify Doe defendants. First, the court found the plaintiff identified the missing party with sufficient specificity by providing the unique IP address and using Maxmind geolocation technology to trace it to San Diego, California, supported by four declarations, including one from a retained computer forensics expert whose analysis of captured data confirmed that the IP address uploaded pieces of the plaintiff's movie files on July 7, 2026.
Second, the court found the plaintiff made a good faith effort to locate the defendant through web searches, review of legal and technical sources, and consultations with computer investigators and cybersecurity consultants, and that subpoenaing the ISP was the only remaining avenue to identify the subscriber. Third, the court concluded the complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss because it alleged the elements of direct copyright infringement: ownership of valid copyrights, violation of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, and volitional conduct by the defendant.
The order granted the application and imposed nine numbered directives: the subpoena may seek only the subscriber's name and address; it must provide at least forty-five calendar days' notice before production; the plaintiff must serve a copy of the order on AT&T with the subpoena; within fourteen calendar days after service, AT&T must notify the subscriber that his, her, or its identity has been subpoenaed and provide a copy of the order; the subscriber then has thirty calendar days from the date of that notice to challenge the disclosure by filing an appropriate pleading; AT&T may seek to modify or quash under Rule 45(d)(3) and must preserve the information pending any such motion; the plaintiff may use the disclosed information only to protect and enforce its rights as set forth in the complaint; and if the defendant wishes to proceed anonymously, the plaintiff may not release identifying information without a court order.
Key Takeaways
- Copyright holders can obtain early discovery to identify anonymous internet users accused of infringement, but they must satisfy a three-factor good-cause test showing specificity, diligent efforts to locate the defendant, and a plausible legal claim.
- Courts may allow subpoenas to internet service providers before the standard Rule 26(f) conference when the ISP is the only source of identifying information and the plaintiff has exhausted other investigative options.
- Even when granting expedited discovery, courts remain wary of potential abuse in cases involving adult content and may impose detailed privacy safeguards to protect unidentified defendants.
- A subscriber whose identity is subpoenaed must receive notice from the ISP within fourteen days of service, along with a copy of the order, and has thirty calendar days from the date of that notice to challenge the disclosure in court.
- Geolocation technology and forensic analysis of file-sharing activity can provide sufficient evidence to establish that an anonymous defendant is likely subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how federal courts balance the need of copyright owners to enforce their rights against the privacy interests of anonymous internet users. While the court permitted the plaintiff to obtain the subscriber's identity, it did so with layered safeguards designed to prevent harassment and ensure the defendant has notice and a meaningful chance to contest the subpoena before any information is released.
The decision reinforces that early discovery in Doe defendant cases is not automatic and requires a showing of good cause, including evidence that the defendant is a real person within the court's jurisdiction and that the lawsuit has legal merit. The nine directives also signal judicial awareness of criticism that some copyright plaintiffs use litigation primarily to extract quick settlements rather than to litigate claims on the merits.