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 98.51.14.149, used the BitTorrent protocol to download and distribute Strike 3’s adult films.
Because the plaintiff could not identify the subscriber behind the IP address without the cooperation of the Internet Service Provider (ISP), it filed an ex parte application for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on the ISP prior to the Rule 26(f) discovery conference.
The plaintiff argued that without expedited discovery it would be unable to serve the defendant and vindicate its copyright.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the plaintiff’s ex parte application for expedited discovery but imposed significant privacy safeguards.
Applying the Ninth Circuit’s “good cause” standard and the five-factor test from Arista Records, LLC v.
Doe 3, the court found the first four factors favored the plaintiff: a prima facie claim was shown, the discovery request was specific, no alternative means existed to identify the subscriber, and the information was necessary to proceed.
However, the fifth factor—the subscriber’s reasonable expectation of privacy—weighed against granting the request without protections.
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.
The order permits a subpoena limited to the subscriber’s name and address, requires the plaintiff to serve the identified person with a copy of the order within ten days, stays formal service of process pending further court order, and invites 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 without court permission.
Key Takeaways
- Expedited discovery to unmask a Doe defendant via ISP subpoena is granted upon a showing of good cause, but privacy concerns require procedural safeguards.
- An IP address identifies a household or location, not necessarily the individual infringer; courts recognize the tenuous link between subscriber and alleged infringer.
- Cases involving adult content warrant heightened privacy protections due to risks of embarrassment, reputational damage, and coercive settlements.
- The court stays formal service of process and requires the plaintiff to notify the identified subscriber of the lawsuit and their right to challenge the subpoena before litigation proceeds.
- Plaintiff is barred from disclosing the defendant’s identity publicly or privately until the court authorizes such disclosure.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a growing judicial trend in copyright ‘strike suit’ cases to balance a plaintiff’s need for discovery against the privacy and due process rights of unidentified internet subscribers.
By requiring notice to the subscriber, an opportunity to move to quash, and a ban on premature disclosure of identity, the court mitigates the risk of coercive settlements driven by the stigma of adult content allegations.
The decision aligns with precedents from the Eastern District of New York and District of New Jersey recognizing that IP-address-based identification is inherently unreliable and that procedural fairness demands protective measures before a Doe defendant is named and served.
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.