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 98.51.14.243, 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, 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 person associated with the IP address.
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 subject IP address.
However, the court imposed significant privacy safeguards: (1) no formal service of process is permitted absent further court order; (2) within ten days of obtaining the subscriber’s identity, the plaintiff must serve a copy of this order on that person; (3) the parties are invited to an informal conference to set a schedule for a potential motion to quash and to discuss service procedures; (4) attendance at the conference is voluntary and does not constitute a waiver of service or appearance; (5) the plaintiff must file a status report within 60 days; and (6) the plaintiff is prohibited from revealing the defendant’s identity until the court grants permission. The court emphasized that an IP address identifies only a location, not a specific individual, and that the sensitive nature of the alleged content (pornographic films) heightens the risk of reputational harm and coercive settlements for a wrongly identified subscriber.
Key Takeaways
- Expedited discovery to unmask a Doe defendant via ISP subpoena is permitted upon a showing of good cause, but the court imposed strict procedural safeguards to protect the subscriber’s privacy and due process rights.
- The court recognized that an IP address identifies a household or location, not a specific infringer, citing the prevalence of shared routers and wireless networks.
- The sensitive nature of adult film copyright cases warrants heightened privacy protections to prevent reputational harm and coercive settlements against potentially innocent subscribers.
- The plaintiff is barred from formal service of process or public disclosure of the defendant’s identity until the court authorizes it, and the defendant is invited to an informal conference to discuss a motion to quash without waiving defenses.
- The plaintiff must file a status report within 60 days updating the court on service of the order, the defendant’s willingness to conference, and the case status.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a growing judicial trend in BitTorrent copyright cases—particularly those involving adult content—to condition expedited discovery on robust privacy protections.
By requiring the plaintiff to serve the court’s order on the identified subscriber, inviting an informal pre-service conference, and prohibiting disclosure of the subscriber’s identity, the court seeks to mitigate the risk of ‘copyright troll’ tactics that leverage the embarrassment of adult content allegations to extract settlements from individuals who may not be the actual infringers. The ruling underscores that an IP address alone is insufficient to establish personal liability and that courts have a duty to protect anonymous internet users from unwarranted exposure before the merits are tested.