Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a complaint on September 29, 2026, in the Southern District of California against a John Doe defendant identified only as the subscriber assigned IP address 70.95.145.139. The company, which owns and distributes adult motion pictures, alleged that the defendant engaged in rampant copyright infringement by downloading and distributing its copyrighted works without authorization through the BitTorrent network. Because no defendant had been named or served, Strike 3 filed an ex parte application seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum, the internet service provider that leased the IP address, before the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference.
The application sought only the true name and address of the subscriber, expressly disclaiming any request for telephone numbers or email addresses. Strike 3 supported its motion with declarations from a systems administrator who explained the VXN Scan infringement-detection system, a computer forensics expert who verified captured network transactions, an employee who confirmed the files matched copyrighted works, and in-house counsel who traced the IP address to San Diego through geolocation technology. The company represented that it would use any disclosed information solely to prosecute the claims in its complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the ex parte application, finding that Strike 3 had established good cause for expedited discovery under the balancing test where the need for early discovery outweighs prejudice to the responding party. Applying the three-factor test used by district courts in the Ninth Circuit, the court concluded that Strike 3 identified the missing party with sufficient specificity by providing the unique IP address and using geolocation technology to trace it to a physical point of origin within the district. The court credited detailed declarations explaining how the VXN Scan system reliably captures IP addresses and verifies infringement through packet-capture recordings and hash-value analysis.
The court also found that Strike 3 made a good-faith effort to locate the defendant through online searches and consultation with investigators before resorting to the subpoena, and that the complaint stated a plausible claim for copyright infringement sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The complaint alleged ownership of valid copyrights registered with the Copyright Office and unauthorized copying and distribution through BitTorrent. The court further concluded that the geolocation evidence supported personal jurisdiction and venue in the Southern District of California.
Recognizing concerns about potential embarrassment and unscrupulous tactics in adult-film copyright cases, the court imposed six safeguards. Strike 3 must attach the order to any subpoena, and the ISP may disclose only the subscriber's name and address. Within fourteen calendar days after service, the ISP must notify the subscriber and provide a copy of the order with the notice. The subscriber has thirty calendar days from notice to challenge disclosure by filing a motion to quash or modify, proceeding anonymously as John Doe. The ISP may move to quash before a return date allowing at least forty-five days from service to production and must preserve the information pending any challenge. Strike 3 may use the information only to enforce the rights stated in its complaint and may not release identifying information without a court order if the defendant proceeds anonymously.
Key Takeaways
- A copyright owner may obtain early discovery to identify an anonymous BitTorrent user by showing good cause under the three-factor test requiring sufficient specificity, prior good-faith efforts, and a plausible claim.
- Detailed technical evidence explaining how infringement-detection software captures IP addresses and verifies file transfers can satisfy the specificity requirement for identifying a Doe defendant.
- Geolocation tracing of an IP address to the forum district, confirmed multiple times over several months, can establish a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction and venue at the early discovery stage.
- Courts may impose protective conditions on ISP subpoenas in copyright cases, including limits on disclosed information, notice with a copy of the order, a thirty-calendar-day opportunity to move to quash anonymously, a forty-five-day minimum return window, preservation pending challenge, and restrictions on the plaintiff's use and release of the information.
- The court acknowledged growing concern about abusive tactics by some plaintiffs in the adult film industry and tailored its order to balance the plaintiff's need for identifying information against the subscriber's privacy interests.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how federal courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the established good-cause framework to early discovery requests in BitTorrent copyright cases. It confirms that plaintiffs must support their applications with detailed technical and forensic evidence, not merely conclusory allegations, and that geolocation evidence can be critical to establishing jurisdiction and venue. The decision also reflects the judiciary's ongoing effort to prevent abuse of the early discovery process by imposing safeguards that protect anonymous subscribers' privacy while allowing legitimate copyright enforcement to proceed.
The protective conditions imposed here—limiting disclosure to name and address, requiring notice with a copy of the order, providing the subscriber and ISP an opportunity to challenge, requiring preservation during any challenge, and restricting use of the information—serve as a model for balancing the competing interests in cases where plaintiffs seek to unmask anonymous internet users accused of infringement.