Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe, identified only by an IP address, on August 20, 2026, alleging one count of direct copyright infringement. It alleges that the defendant used BitTorrent to download, copy, and distribute 24 of its adult motion pictures without authorization between May 21 and July 26, 2026, and that its detection systems connected directly with the IP address and captured pieces of the works. These are allegations, not findings.
Knowing the defendant only by IP address, Strike 3 applied ex parte for leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the internet service provider, Spectrum, before the Rule 26(f) conference, seeking only the subscriber's name and physical address. Its general counsel declared that geolocation database queries traced the address to Carlsbad, California, and Strike 3 represented that searches, research, and consultations with investigators and cybersecurity consultants identified the provider and general location but not the subscriber.
The Court’s Holding
Applying the three-factor test from Columbia Insurance Co. v. seescandy.com, the magistrate judge found good cause for early discovery. First, Strike 3 identified the Doe with sufficient specificity: it alleged actual transmissions through direct connections with one IP address, and its geolocation evidence made a preliminary showing that the alleged infringer is in this District. The court stressed that this finding is limited to the discovery request; it does not resolve any later personal jurisdiction challenge or establish that the subscriber is the infringer. Second, Strike 3 described its prior efforts and explained why it cannot identify the subscriber without Spectrum's records. Third, its allegations of ownership and unauthorized copying and distribution sufficiently state a direct infringement claim for this limited purpose, without establishing the subscriber's liability.
The subpoena is limited to the name and physical address of the subscriber or subscribers assigned the IP address at the dates and times in Exhibit A to the complaint, must state those timestamps in UTC and attach the order, and must allow Spectrum at least 45 days to comply. Under 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), Spectrum must send each affected subscriber the subpoena and order within 14 days of service, and the subscriber has 21 days from receipt to challenge. Spectrum may not disclose before the later of the compliance deadline or the end of that period, must move to quash before the compliance deadline if it chooses to, and must preserve the information without disclosing it if a timely challenge is filed, pending further order.
A limited protective order applies. Strike 3 may use the information solely to investigate and prosecute this action and may not publicly disclose the subscriber's identity before service of the summons and complaint or during the 60 days afterward. The defendant may proceed as John Doe during that period and seek continued protection, which remains in effect while a timely motion is pending. This is an interlocutory discovery order; the case remains pending.
Key Takeaways
- Early discovery to identify a Doe defendant requires good cause, which this court assessed by asking whether the party is identified with specificity, what prior efforts were made, and whether the claim could survive a motion to dismiss.
- Allegations of direct connections to a specific IP address, paired with geolocation evidence, supported a preliminary showing that the defendant is a real person located in the district.
- The findings are expressly limited: they do not decide personal jurisdiction or establish that the subscriber committed the infringement.
- The subpoena reaches only the subscriber's name and address, and the subscriber receives notice and 21 days to challenge before disclosure.
- The subscriber's identity is temporarily shielded from public disclosure until 60 days after service, and the defendant may seek continued protection.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how the Southern District of California handles recurring ex parte applications by Strike 3, relying on earlier district decisions that accepted comparable geolocation evidence. It pairs early discovery with subscriber notice, a challenge window, and temporary anonymity, reflecting the court's recognition that the subscriber may not be the person who infringed.
The order is a nonfinal discovery ruling by a magistrate judge with no precedential weight, and it adjudicates no liability. Still open are whether the subscriber or Spectrum challenges the subpoena, whom Strike 3 ultimately names, and whether the defendant contests jurisdiction or the merits.