Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant in the Southern District of California, alleging direct copyright infringement through the BitTorrent file-sharing system. Its June 25, 2026 complaint alleged that the subscriber associated with a particular IP address had copied and distributed its works without authorization and had been recorded infringing 43 movies over an extended period. These were allegations, not adjudicated findings of infringement. Strike 3 identified Spectrum as the internet service provider associated with the address and said it could not serve the defendant or pursue the case without obtaining the subscriber's identifying information.
Strike 3 therefore filed an ex parte application under ECF No. 4 for permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Spectrum before the parties' Rule 26(f) conference. It requested only the defendant's true name and address. No opposition was filed because no defendant had yet been named or served. The application also relied on geolocation evidence placing the address within the district and on a declaration describing efforts to identify the subscriber through means other than compelled ISP disclosure.
Rule 26(d)(1) generally bars discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless the court authorizes it. The court explained that early discovery may be permitted for good cause to learn facts necessary to identify and serve an unknown defendant. Applying Columbia Insurance Co. v. seescandy.com and related authority, it required Strike 3 to identify the missing party with sufficient specificity, describe all previous location efforts, and establish that its suit could withstand a motion to dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
The court found all three requirements satisfied. On specificity, Strike 3 submitted evidence that MaxMind geolocation technology had traced the address to San Diego, and its general counsel declared that the address had been traced within the district on three occasions. The court concluded that this sufficiently identified a likely real person associated with the address and likely located in the Southern District of California. On prior efforts, Strike 3 reported using online search engines, public records, computer investigators, and cybersecurity consultants without success. The court accepted that it had attempted to determine the defendant's identity but remained unable to do so.
For the pleading factor, the court examined the single claim of direct copyright infringement. It stated the requirements of ownership of the allegedly infringed material, violation of at least one exclusive right under 17 U.S.C. § 106, and volitional conduct or proximate causation. Strike 3 alleged ownership, unauthorized copying and distribution, and affirmative use of BitTorrent. The court found those allegations sufficient to state a prima facie case capable of withstanding a motion to dismiss; it did not decide the ultimate merits or determine that the subscriber committed infringement.
The court granted leave to serve Spectrum with a subpoena limited to the subscriber's name and physical address. The subpoena must include the order and allow Spectrum at least 45 days to comply. Spectrum must give the subscriber a copy within 14 days after being served, and Doe has 21 days from receipt to challenge the subpoena. If Spectrum moves to quash, it must do so before the compliance deadline without disclosing the requested information. The court also found good cause for a limited protective order allowing Doe to proceed pseudonymously for 60 days after service of the summons and complaint.
Key Takeaways
- Early discovery before a Rule 26(f) conference requires court authorization and good cause, including when a copyright plaintiff seeks information needed to identify and serve an unknown defendant.
- The court found the specificity requirement met through IP-address evidence and repeated geolocation results placing the likely defendant within the judicial district.
- Unsuccessful searches of public records and online sources, together with consultations with investigators and cybersecurity consultants, supported the required showing of prior identification efforts.
- The motion-to-dismiss analysis concerned the adequacy of Strike 3's ownership, unauthorized-copying, distribution, and volitional-conduct allegations, not a final determination of liability.
- The subpoena was narrowly limited to a name and physical address and was accompanied by notice, compliance, challenge, nondisclosure, and temporary-pseudonymity safeguards.
Why It Matters
The order shows how this court applied the established three-factor framework to a copyright plaintiff seeking an anonymous defendant's identity before ordinary discovery could begin. Its analysis separates the showing needed for early identifying discovery from the merits of the infringement claim: adequate allegations and geolocation evidence justified the subpoena, but they did not establish that the subscriber was the infringer.
The disposition also pairs identification with procedural protections. Spectrum receives time to comply and an opportunity to move to quash without first revealing the information, while the subscriber receives notice and a defined period to challenge the subpoena. The 60-day pseudonymity provision further limits immediate public identification after service, reflecting the privacy concerns discussed in the order and the authorities it cited.